PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Motion made and Question proposed,
That the Speaker do issue his warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough constituency of Glasgow, Central in the room of Mr. Robert McTaggart, deceased.—[Mr. Sillars.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Objection taken. The motion will stand over until the commencement of Public Business; that is, immediately after the ten-minute Bill.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL

WESLEYAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Beef Production

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the farming industry regarding the future of beef production in Scotland.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend received a number of representations recently about that matter from the National Farmers Union of Scotland and other interested bodies.

Mr. Wallace: Although last week's price agreement brought some welcome relief to the beef industry, interest rate increases over recent months more than cancels it out. The Minister may be aware that beef producers in my own constituency are concerned that the new beef premium should be paid on farm; that in specialist beef herds it should be extended to include heifers; and that the suckler cow premium should be increased—which is something that the United Kingdom Government can do off their own back, because it does not have to be negotiated. What progress has been made with each of those three measures?

Mr. Lang: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remark that the scheme has been well received by beef farmers. The green pound devaluation and the phasing out of monetary compensatory amounts will certainly be beneficial. As to the headage payment, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the 90 limit is an improvement on the proposed limit of 75 and on the limit of 50 that previously applied in other countries. I understand the problems of farmers in Orkney. My right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have undertaken to review the practicability and cost-effectiveness of moving to an on-farm basis for slaughter. Meanwhile, prices are holding up well, including those for heifers.

Sir Hector Monro: In view of the overall fall in hill farmers' income in recent years, will my hon. Friend particularly bear in mind the headage payment on beef? It would be much better if the 90 limit, which we welcome, were paid for cows on farm rather than at slaughter. Will my hon. Friend do everything possible through the proper channels to ensure that the suckler cow premium is raised to the maximum limit?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend will have heard my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I particularly note his comment about the suckler cow premium. I, like him, think that it is a good deal for farmers, adding about £15 million to £20 million to farm incomes in Scotland at low cost to the taxpayer and at negligible expense, in terms of prices, to the consumer.

Midlothian Constituency

Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last visited the parliamentary constituency of Midlothian.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend visits the hon. Member's constituency from time to time, both officially and privately.

Mr. Eadie: Is it not strange that when the Secretary of State for Scotland has a question put to him, he is not prepared to answer it at the Dispatch Box? I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that since he decided it was politic to visit Longannet, and since Bilston Glen and Monktonhall collieries are in very close proximity to his constituency, would it not have been equally politic to have visited them? As the men at Bilston Glen and Monktonhall decided by a majority to resist the closure of those collieries, will the Secretary of State consider visiting them, especially since, on the basis of the article that was published in the Edinburgh Evening News on Monday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman regards himself as the representative and defender of Scottish interests in the Cabinet. It is disgraceful that the Secretary of State did not answer my question.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. As is the normal practice, he shares his responsibilities fairly, evenly and sensibly with his ministerial colleagues.
The proposed closure of Bilston Glen is a matter of regret for us all. However it is a matter for the commercial judgment of British Coal. The review procedure is now under way and that is the appropriate place in which various aspects of the proposed closure can be fully considered.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is not that long since Ministers were bending the law to get miners through the gates of Bilston Glen colliery. Now they are standing back and allowing those gates to be closed for ever, if British Coal has its way. Is it not sheer, wanton vandalism to allow the Lothian coalfield to be closed down, with more than 100 million tonnes of low sulphur, high quality coal in its reserves, when any sensible appraisal of the world energy scene must confirm that those reserves will be required?

Mr. Lang: It is, of course, a source of regret when such a mine is closed. However the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the financial losses at Bilston Glen last year were £20 million and have been £50 million in past years. Production is averaging less than two thirds of target, and in those circumstances British Coal has had to take a commercial decision. It is now subject to the review procedure, and I am glad that, in the event of closure, miners at the pit will be offered enhanced redundancy terms.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that another important matter for the coal industry in Lothian is the agreement on coal-burn between British Coal and the South of Scotland Electricity Board? He will remember that such an agreement must include agreement on all the essentials of the contract. Does he accept that there is nothing more essential than price, which still appears to be a stumbling block? Does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State said that he was as confident as he possibly could be that an agreement would be reached? Is the Scottish Office still confident that the five-year agreement will be delivered? Given its importance to the Scottish economy, and the 3,000 jobs at stake, will he ensure that the agreement is concluded and that it sticks?

Mr. Lang: The bulk of Bilston Glen's output goes to industrial and domestic users, but we hope that agreement will be reached on coal-burn between British Coal and the SSEB. However, it must be a matter for commercial negotiation between those parties.

Mr. Eadie: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I propose to raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. It is disgraceful that the Secretary of State is here but not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Skye Bridge

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the construction of a bridge to the Isle of Skye.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The two firms which suggested that a bridge might be built as a private sector project have provided the information requested. The Scottish Development Department is now considering it and will be consulting the Highland regional council.

Mr. Kennedy: Can the Minister give some further indication of Scottish Office thinking on the vexed question of tolls being used to finance any possible private sector project, given the great concern on the island about the level of tolls, and the principle that if such a fixed link is established, as I hope it will, it should be part of the ongoing trunk route which will require the upgrading to trunk road status of the Kyleakin to Uig road? What is the present status of the application from Caledonian MacBrayne in regard to the replacement of the existing ferries used in the Kyle of Lochalsh to Kyleakin route, which is clearly of great relevance to the consideration of the bridge?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: CalMac is carrying out an investment appraisal on replacing the existing ferries and is considering a number of options, including refurbishing the existing vessels or replacing them with newer, larger ones. Obviously the possibility of a bridge has to be taken into account. The decision will involve the Highland regional council and the Secretary of State and I hope that it will be forthcoming in the relatively near future. No decision has been made as yet on a bridge or tolls, but a tolled private crossing in place of a ferry might provide a permanent crossing sooner than would otherwise be possible. Although no decision on tolls has been made, and I cannot speculate, I presume that travellers will prefer to pay to cross without delay at any time of the day or night than to continue with the ferries.

Mr. Wilson: I wish to question the Minister on precisely that latter assumption. Does he agree that the Eilean a'Cheo—the misty isle—should not be used as a front to slip in the precedent of privatising the public highway system in Scotland? Will he give an assurance that local communities' views will be binding and that a high-toll bridge will not be imposed? Will he give an assurance that improvements in the public highway and bridge system will continue to be funded from general taxation and that there will be no more nonsense of private enterprise roads and bridges?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amount of toll will depend on proposals made by the private sector. Public spending on trunk roads has risen to £162 million this year. There are precedents for private expenditure in other parts of Britain, such as the Dartford bridge across the River Thames, which is a private sector project.

European Regional Development Fund

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from the European regional development fund since its inception.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Scotland has received awards of just over £800 million since the regional fund's inception.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the Scottish people are aware of the size of assistance that the Scottish economy receives? If not, what is he doing further to publicise it?

Mr. Rifkind: Over the years, the Scottish Office, local authorities and others, have succeeded in winning for Scotland a substantial share of the regional fund. The money is used for a series of crucial projects affecting Scottish infrastructure. I believe that the benefits of the support are well understood.

Mr. Steel: How much more would have been spent in Scotland if European regional fund grants had been additional to and not in place of Scottish Office money?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that whatever funding is given to the United Kingdom, the contribution that the United Kingdom taxpayer makes to the Commission must be taken into account. These are not new resources invented from air; they are taxpayers' funds, whatever the source may be.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that Bruce Millan disagrees fundamentally and basically? What response has the Scottish Office given to Bruce Millan on additionality?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that when Mr. Bruce Millan was Secretary of State for Scotland, the rules on additionality were exactly the same as they are now. It is odd for him to change his mind because he has become a Commissioner in Brussels.

Train Services

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed with representatives of British Rail the case for improvement of train services (a) in Scotland and (b) between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of the British Rail (Scottish) board, Mr. John Cameron, on 26 April 1989 and discussed various matters concerned with rail services in Scotland and between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wray: Will the Minister assure the House that he will not allow British Rail's plans for Scotland to go ahead unless it applies stricter safety measures? Does the Minister

realise that since 1973 there has been a 126 per cent. increase in fires? Is this because of unmanned railway stations?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the chairman of British Rail. Safety is an extremely high priority, as it should be. We shall take seriously into account the results of the inquiry into the accident at Belgrove.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Has the electrification of the line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen been discussed with senior representatives of British Rail? If not, will my hon. Friend impress on the chairman of British Rail the importance of electrification, especially given the huge sums of money being spent south of London on the Channel tunnel?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since 1979, £3·7 billion has been invested on railways throughout the United Kingdom, £300 million of which was spent on the electrification of the east coast route. British Rail takes the view that electrification of the route to Aberdeen is not justified because north of Edinburgh passenger volume is much less than in other parts of the country. It is proceeding with the £300 million east coast main line project and substantial parts of the network in the west of Scotland have been electrified.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will know that to achieve better safety on the railways skilled engineers must be employed to carry out the work. Will he speak to British Rail about the lack of apprentices being taken on? It is shameful, when we have such high unemployment, that we are not planning for the future. Will he ensure that more apprentices are trained in the skills that the industry needs?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly mention those points to the chairman of British Rail. I stress that Scotland will be a major beneficiary of electrification of the east coast main line. In addition, the Scottish Office has agreed to provide a 75 per cent. grant to Strathclyde regional council towards the £40 million of new rolling stock. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's point about apprentices.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend bear carefully and closely in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said about the Edinburgh to Aberdeen section? It must be electrified if the north-east of Scotland is to compete effectively and efficiently with the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe after 1992. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the rail lines to Prestwick must be upgraded and a station and high-speed link provided so that people in the east of Scotland as well as Glasgow can get to Prestwick quickly?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. British Rail will co-operate in the provision of information to groups interested in the electrification of the railway line to the north, although it has formed another view, which I have mentioned. Obviously, we should have excellent communications with the Channel tunnel. There are plans to ensure that there are excellent arrangements for bypassing London through the west to ensure that trains get through speedily.
On Prestwick, investment in railways and associated developments is a matter for British Rail, but we shall welcome any proposals to improve infrastructure communications in Scotland.

Community Charge

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had about the collection of unpaid poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: None. It is clear from their own budget proposals that regional and islands councils do not expect non-payment to be a significant problem.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that people are on income support because they do not have enough money to survive without it? Will he discuss with his colleagues in the DSS the standard of living that is likely to be endured by people on income support whose benefit is deducted, leaving only 10p of income support? Clearly, such a standard of living is extremely poor. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his policies are harsh and oppressive and will he repeal the statutory instrument that creates this problem?

Mr. Lang: As the hon. Lady knows, people on income support will be eligible for a maximum rebate. In addition, income support has been increased to help meet the remaining 20 per cent. of the charge.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the campaign of mass resistance, which was constantly predicted by the Opposition, has failed to materialise? Is it not the height of irresponsibility for certain Labour councillors in Edinburgh to announce the highest community charge rate in Scotland and subsequently declare that they will not pay it?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. Campaigns of non-payment are futile and irresponsible. It is shameful that people in elected offices should encourage others to break the law.

Mr. Sillars: How does the Minister justify a case which has been publicised of a schizophrenic woman with a mental age of seven who is just recovering from a cervical cancer operation and who has no capacity to earn? How does he justify applying a poll tax to her, and how will he get the money out of her?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about that case and if the person is his constituent, I shall look into it. The Scottish National party's campaign to generate a phantom army of 100,000 non-payers is futile and irresponsible. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, even if the SNP succeeded in finding 100,000 such non-payers, local authority revenue would be reduced by less than 0·5 per cent.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Assuming that the lady who has been described by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) previously lived alone, how would she have paid her rates?

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend has made a fair point. I have offered to look into the case if it concerns a constituent of the hon. Member for Govan. Perhaps I may leave the matter there.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that many people will not pay the poll tax because they cannot understand the rebate system? What steps has he taken to prolong the period during which they may apply for rebates? On the question of non-payment on principle, is not there an honourable tradition in democratic countries of resisting unjust and unfair taxes and withholding what is felt necessary?

Mr. Lang: Many people who thought domestic rates grossly unfair continued to pay them. We have now replaced them with an infinitely fairer tax that spreads the burden more evenly.
We wish everyone eligible for a rebate to apply for it and we are advertising extensively to achieve that. We have also enabled people to backdate their application by extending the period for such applications, exceptionally, to 56 days.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that a young constituent of mine who is attending a Scottish university has been informed that he is not eligible for a community charge rebate because his parental home is not in Scotland? Will all British students be entitled to rebate regardless of where they happen to live in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lang: Students are not eligible for rebate; they are entitled to an exemption from 80 per cent. of the community charge. If my hon. Friend writes to me about his constituent, I shall certainly be happy to clarify the precise position.

Mr. Buchan: Is it not clear already that the rebate system is in such a mess and so complicated and difficult that the 56-day period is quite insufficient and should be extended? Will the Minister confirm that the most chicken-hearted leaders of all are the leaders of a political party who will not suffer themselves if they do not pay the poll tax but who are calling upon others who cannot afford to do so not to pay it?

Mr. Lang: I think that the talk of "chicken-hearted leadership" was used by the Scottish National party about the Labour party. It is not my purpose to intrude in a family squabble between Socialists.
We are certainly keen to encourage people to apply for rebates. More than 750,000 applications have been accepted by local authorities for processing. They are coming in in their thousands every day and are being processed very quickly.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who recommend selective obedience to the law are producing a recipe for anarchy? Does he also agree that it is scandalous that hon. Members should threaten not to pay a tax duly authorised by the House? Does he further agree that if the policy of non-payment succeeded, it would serve only to reduce local authorities' cash flow and restrict the services that they can provide, thus hitting those on the lowest incomes rather than somewhat self-satisfied Labour Back Benchers?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes his point extremely well. Fortunately most local authorities have not only assumed that at least 95 per cent. of those liable to pay will pay but the anecdotal evidence suggests that payments are flowing in well, although it is a matter for them.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that, with income support set at bare subsistence level, there is genuine cause for concern about the indefensible principle of deduction of benefit without the consent of the individual involved? Will the Minister explain why that system has been introduced? Does he also accept that there is genuine concern—I suspect on both sides of the House—about the impact of a raft of changes affecting those on low incomes, on fixed incomes and on benefit? That includes the housing benefit changes and rent increases as well as the poll tax. Will the Minister commission an independent survey to assess the impact on those people? I ask that in the hope that the evidence which I think it will produce will persuade even him to think again.

Mr. Lang: The deduction from benefits is a well-established precedent which has been used by previous Governments. Income support has been increased by up to £2·30 a week for a couple, which, in many parts of Scotland, is more than enough to meet the 20 per cent. level of community charge. It would be more than enough in even more parts of Scotland if some local authorities had not levied such a high rate of community charge.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister aware of the anger and concern being voiced by many people in rural parts of Scotland, particularly in Easdale in my constituency, at the fact that they must pay a flat-rate poll tax for unequal services? People in Glasgow pay the same amount, but the people of Easdale have no pavements, lighting, roads or libraries.

Mr. Lang: By implication, the hon. Lady is suggesting that people should pay only for what they get. The vast majority of local authority costs fall on the education budget, yet a great many people have no children. The important point is that local authority costs should be spread around the adult population of a region and district. Apart from anything else, it will encourage them to take a closer interest in the work of their local authorities and demand better, more relevant and efficiently delivered services.

National Dock Labour Scheme

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect the abolition of the national dock labour scheme will have on employment prospects in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: I believe that the abolition of the dock labour scheme and the lifting of its restrictions will attract new investment and jobs to scheme ports and port areas in Scotland.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the dock labour scheme is extremely good news for Scotland? More investment will go to Scottish ports and, as a direct result, along with the ending of restrictive practices in the ports, increased job opportunities will be created. Will not the abolition of the dock labour scheme make a significant contribution to the increasing regeneration of the Scottish economy?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A study recently commissioned by the National Association of

Port Employers estimated that abolition would create up to 50,000 new jobs in scheme port areas. I should like to be confident that Scotland will share in the 50,000 new jobs.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will know that, at 3 o'clock this morning, during the deliberations of the Standing Committee on the Dock Work Bill, the Secretary of State for Employment said that he decided to abolish the Training Agency. Following the abolition of the dock labour scheme, Mr. Bill Hughes will have sole responsibility for training in our docks in Scotland. Exactly what experience has Mr. Bill Hughes had of loading and unloading ships?

Mr. Lang: Mr. Bill Hughes is an experienced man of many parts. I have considerable confidence in a great deal of what he says. One need only look at the contrasting records of Aberdeen and Peterhead to see the benefit that the abolition of the dock labour scheme will have.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Grangemouth, where the docks are being fully automated and no dockers are required, a registered dock worker is provided with a Portakabin, a colour television and a microwave oven so that he might overcome boredom? Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members who think that there is nothing wrong with ghosting are only defending the indefensible and leaving Scottish industry to fall behind the rest of Europe?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is significant that business has fallen sharply at dock labour scheme ports. It is interesting also that non-scheme ports have good conditions of employment which compare favourably with those of registered dock workers.

Mr. Robert Hughes: When the Minister considers Aberdeen and Peterhead, will he compare like with like? He is not speaking of a major fishing port in Aberdeen. Will he accept that Aberdeen port has had a record year in terms of throughput, profit and investment and is looking forward to future progress, and that that progress will be damaged because of the Minister's activities?

Mr. Lang: On the contrary. Aberdeen will benefit considerably from the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that, between 1977 and 1987, business through Aberdeen fell by 20 per cent. Over the same period, the number of fish landings at Peterhead rose by 84 per cent.

Ferry Subsidies

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he is making in the reduction of ferry subsidies.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Shipping subsidies in total are falling. Lower oil prices and higher carryings have reduced the deficit subsidy of Caledonian MacBrayne in recent years. P and O's fare subsidy has been increasing with increasing traffic, but for the current year has been limited in real terms.

Mr. Field: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Isle of Wight has some of the highest unsubsidised ferry fares, if not in the EEC certainly in the United Kingdom. Having visited St. Kilda and read the sad history of that Scottish


island, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that the British taxpayer is subsidising the Scottish Highlands and Islands to ensure that that sad history is never repeated? Will he drive home that point to the petty Opposition parties which are intent on destroying the Act of Union?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging that there are approximately 100,000 persons living on 75 Scottish islands, which is considerably fewer than the number of people who live in his constituency.
The ferries are very much regarded as a lifeline service. We are doing all that we can to ensure that there should be value for money. The new CalMac board will include people with commercial and shipping experience, as well as first-hand knowledge of the islands. The board will be asked to look for more efficient and cost-effective ways of delivering the same standard of service. As I have said, CalMac's subsidies have been falling, but P and O's have been marginally increasing.

GPs' Contracts

Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with Scottish general practitioners with regard to the new Scottish contract of service.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote on 16 March to all general practitioners in Scotland inviting their views. He, I and officials have met representatives of the profession in Scotland on several occasions to discuss the new contract.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposed contract is very good for rural doctors? Will he also agree that doctors will maintain their income without increasing their lists, and will have adequate time to deal with patients both at home and in surgeries? Will he try to remove the misunderstanding between the general practitioners and the community, perhaps caused by publicity provided by the BMA, and try to reduce the alarm unnecessarily caused to constituents?

Mr. Rifkind: The specific proposals for rural doctors in Scotland have been warmly welcomed by the medical profession and, indeed, by many individual doctors. Of course, there are matters affecting the United Kingdom as a whole that are part of the BMA's negotiations, which are continuing. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that these matters can best be dealt with on the basis of what is in the White Paper and not by misrepresentation of the White Paper.

Mr. Norman Hogg: How does the Secretary of State explain away the fact that everything that he and his hon. Friend do in the Health Service is greeted with complete disapproval by the Health Service professionals, and the latest episode is just another example? Does he not think that the time has come for him and his hon. Friend to pause and reconsider the Government's actions in the light of opinion being expressed within the medical profession?

Mr. Rifkind: I would be more worried by the reaction from certain quarters if it were based on a clear understanding of what is in the White Paper. So many allegations have been made in documents, such as that issued by the BMA, that have no foundation in truth.

There seems to be a deliberate attempt to scare elderly people in particular by implying that in future they would not be entitled to treatment under the National Health Service. It is important indeed that those who represent the general practitioners put their arguments forward clearly and concisely. If they wish to criticise the Government, they are free to do so, but they should not criticise the Government for what is not in the White Paper. That is the weakness in their ultimate position.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State will be aware of the enhanced number of women general practitioners in Scotland and of the vital role they often play in preventive medicine. Would it be possible for the Scottish Office to discuss the implications of the White Paper with these women doctors, since so many of them are on part-time contracts and their careers may be damaged if the proposals went through unamended?

Mr. Rifkind: I take the hon. Lady's point; that is one of the considerations we had in mind when proposing, for example, in rural areas that payments from the rural practice fund would be based on average and not on personal list sizes, and we are prepared to consider a similar approach towards practices in urban areas as well.

Mr. Darling: Is it not the height of arrogance for the Secretary of State to accuse doctors of scaring old ladies? Is he not aware of the fact that many general practitioners in Scotland and throughout the whole country are extremely concerned at the prospect of being forced to increase their list size and of having to become accountants and to regard elderly patients, in particular, not as patients to be treated on the basis of need but simply as overheads or non-profit-making units? Does he not understand that general practitioners are concerned about the Health Service? They use it and live with it, unlike Conservative Members.

Mr. Rifkind: As one who uses the National Health Service, I repudiate entirely what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has inadvertently emphasised that he, too, has not read the White Paper.

Mr. Darling: I have.

Mr. Rifkind: If he has read it, he certainly has not understood it, because he began by proposing that general practitioners would be forced to take on more patients in order to maintain their income. No general practitioner will be forced to take on more patients to maintain his or her income and although taking on additional patients might lead to an increase in income, that is a very different proposition.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a substantial number of doctors in my constituency are concerned about the misleading propaganda that has come out of London? Is he also aware that they have pointed out to me that under the provisions of their new contracts and because of the way in which they will be given the opportunity of choice about how to run their practices, they might be able to allocate funds from their own resources to save hospitals such as Blairgowrie cottage hospital and Forfar infirmary because the additional cash could be directed in that way?

Mr. Rifkind: That is entirely true. Of course, additional resources that do not need to be used for one purpose


within the National Health Service will continue to be available within the NHS to improve the quality of provision in both general practices and hospitals. That is why the proposals deserve to be welcomed.

Mr. Galbraith: Although the Secretary of State may have read the White Paper, he certainly does not understand it because if he did he would realise that the new GP contracts contain an incentive to increase list size. Will he accept that neither general practitioners nor patients can understand how a GP seeing more patients can somehow improve the quality of care? Will the Secretary of State reconsider his position on list sizes and on incentives to increase list sizes because then and only then can agreements be reached on GPs' contracts for the benefit of all patients?

Mr. Rifkind: There are various ways in which general practitioners can increase their income, sometimes significantly, by providing better and extra facilities to their patients. The point at issue is whether they need to increase their list size to maintain their income. That is the allegation that has been made by the BMA and repeated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), and that allegation is totally unfounded.

Single European Market

Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has commissioned into the likely impact of the integrated market after 1992 on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend the Minister of State is chairing the single market committee of the Scottish Economic Council which is examining the effects of a single European market on Scotland. In addition, a number of studies have been commissioned.

Mr. Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the two reports that were published last month, one by Peat Marwick McLintock and the other by the CBI Scotland, and of yesterday's words from Professor Neil Hood of the Scottish Development Agency which confirmed that Scottish industry is singularly ill-equipped and feels that it has inadequate backup to meet the major challenges of 1992? Is it not time that the Secretary of State cast off the south-east England bias of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and conducted some more detailed studies about the impact of 1992 on Scotland's manufacturing base?

Mr. Rifkind: Many Scottish companies are ready to meet the challenge; others are not. Our objective must be to ensure that the challenge is fully realised—[Interruption.] Labour Members seem to be more interested in the relevance of a slogan than in the content and substance of the point being made. The committee that has been set up under the Scottish Economic Council includes representatives from industry, the trade unions and others concerned with this matter in Scotland, and they will examine the important point that the hon. Gentleman has properly raised.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the removal of the Scottish economy from the United Kingdom, which is what some anti-Unionists would have us bring about, would damage the whole of the

British economy and does he further agree that if the Scottish economy tried to work on its own with such a heavy dependence on the oil industry, that would be damaging to Scotland? Does he also agree that all studies have demonstrated that trying to run those economies separately would damage the industries of both countries and would be the death of the 1992 spirit?

Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly the case that irrespective of political institutions the people of Scotland and the people of England are geographically destined to share the same small island. A consequence of that is bound to be a highly integrated economy and it has been shown over the years to be in the interests of the people of Scotland and of England that they share that economic destiny.

Mr. McLeish: Has not the Secretary of State been far too complacent about 1992? Is he aware of the labour force survey figures released for 1988 which show that of the 1·6 million jobs created between June 1983 and June 1988, 700,000—40 per cent.—were created in the south-east, but only 30,000—2 per cent.—were created in Scotland? Does he agree that we need an effective regional policy, investment in infrastructure and a low interest rate policy? If those policies are not adopted, Scotland will not benefit from 1992.

Mr. Rifkind: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the latest report from the Fraser of Allander Institute suggests that the Scottish economy is growing faster than that of the rest of the United Kingdom. If that is the view of the institute, it should be a matter of satisfaction to both sides of the House.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Secretary of State agree with the view of Jacques Delors, the president of the European Commission, that the open market of 1992 must be balanced by an effective regional policy or does he agree with the recent remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said at Chatham house that a regional policy can be positively damaging to the economy?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not believe that a regional policy is damaging to the economy and that is why the present British Government exercise an extremely healthy and successful one.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a recent poll, which shows that a higher proportion of companies in Scotland and the north of England than in the rest of Britain are intending to expand in Europe is significant? Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that the Scottish financial services sect or has tremendous opportunities for growth within the single European market?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. It is extremely encouraging that a Scottish company such as Christian Salvesen is taking over a Belgian company and James Howden and Weir Pumps is acquiring continental subsidiaries. That clearly demonstrates that a number of the most effective Scottish companies appreciate the opportunities offered by the single European market.

Training Courses

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people have successfully


completed a Manpower Services Commission training course in Scotland during the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: Information is not available about total completions over the past 10 years, but I can say that 522,328 young people between the ages of 16 and 18 entered training programmes during that time.

Mr. Brown: Does the Minister agree that many trainees never finish their courses because of accidents? Has he ever heard of James McCormack, a young constituent, who died in 1985 as a result of injuries sustained in a company called MacGregors Quayside Mills, which is based in Leith? Does he appreciate that that family, as well as their son, suffered greatly? Has he ever understood that compensation was denied to that family? Does he appreciate that a court in Sheffield ruled only recently that the Manpower Services Commission is legally responsible for the accidents to and the death of MSC trainees? Will that English ruling prevail in Scotland? Will compensation —not that money is important—be paid to the McCormack family to make amends for what went wrong in the past? More important, will he ensure that such individuals—they are called trainees—are properly protected in the future? It is about time that the Minister spoke.

Mr. Lang: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on his last point. Obviously accidents at work are to be deplored and should be guarded against. I know that the greatest care is taken by the MSC, now the Training Agency, to try to ensure that accidents to young people on training courses are kept to an absolute minimum and, if possible, avoided at all costs.
With regard to completion of courses, the hon. Gentleman might like to know that in recent years more than 70 per cent. of those completing YTS have either gone into employnent or on to further training and education.

Mr. Ron Brown: For the sake of the McCormack family—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that all young people in Scotland have the opportunity to benefit from training schemes, especially disabled young people? Can my hon. Friend give the figures on the number of disabled young people who have completed such training courses? Can he also reassure me that steps are taken to ensure that access to training places is suitable for disabled people?

Mr. Lang: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend figures without notice, but he is right to emphasise the importance of training for disabled people. I am particularly encouraged by the high proportion of Scottish companies that are successful in the fit for work awards. Only last week I presented one to IBM in Greenock, a winner for the third year in succession.

Uniform Business Rate

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has commissioned into the impact of a uniform business rate in England and Wales on Scottish business; and what are its findings.

Mr. Rifkind: The introduction of the uniform business rate in England and Wales in 1990 will be phased in gradually over a number of years. It is our intention to move towards a common rate on the same time scale in Scotland. I do not therefore think that research is required.

Mr. Worthington: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his 100 per cent. record; for about the 20th time he has failed to answer the question. What research has been conducted into the impact on Scotland of a uniform business rate in England and Wales? No research has been conducted. It is a gross dereliction of duty. Scottish business will be damaged by the impact of a uniform business rate in England and Wales. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no research has been done?

Mr. Rifkind: I actually said that in my original reply, if the hon. Gentleman had taken the courtesy to listen to it. I pointed out that the reason is that we intend to introduce a common rate poundage in Scotland over the same time scale. Therefore, by the time the uniform business rate is in operation there will be a common rate poundage throughout the United Kingdom. I can keep repeating the point if it helps the hon. Gentleman. I can give him information, but I cannot give him wisdom.

Mr. McAllion: By controlling the rate of increase in the non-domestic rate, the Secretary of State for Scotland ensures that the poll tax payer has to pay more than would otherwise have been the case. What will happen to the poor people who cannot afford inflated poll taxes? So far the Secretary of State has given them no advice. The only alternative that the Government have offered to them is to escape liability by removing their names from the electoral register. Is that what the Secretary of State wants?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows that that does not lead to their escaping liability for community charge. I trust that he is making that clear to his constituents, because that is the legal position. The hon. Gentleman also knows perfectly well that those on low incomes can receive up to 80 per cent. rebate on the community charge for which they are liable.

Mr. Maclennan: On the substance of the question, does the Secretary of State believe that phasing of the introduction of the uniform business rate will be to the advantage or disadvantage of Scottish business? What calculations has he made?

Mr. Rifkind: It would be to the disadvantage of Scottish business if nothing of a similar kind were happening in Scotland over the same period. I have emphasised that the introduction of a common rate poundage throughout the United Kingdom will take place over the same time scale north and south of the border.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Scottish business expects to have an advantage compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he also bear in mind the position within Scotland and


ensure that businesses in low-rated authorities, such as Kincardine and Deeside, do not suffer averaging up at the same time as others benefit from averaging down?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is precisely for that reason that we are moving towards a common rate poundage throughout the United Kingdom and not seeking to introduce a UBR that involves the pooling of rates income and its redistribution. It is precisely to protect local authorities such as my right hon. Friend has referred to.

Caledonian MacBrayne

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of vessels which Caledonian MacBrayne expects to order over the next five years.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Caledonian MacBrayne's corporate plan over the next five years includes proposals to replace two major vessels and six minor vessels. All these proposals for new ships will need to be subject to a detailed economic appraisal and review in the light of Caledonian MacBrayne's requirements before any order can be approved.

Dr. Godman: Given that in the light of the Transport (Scotland) Bill the Secretary of State might soon be given the sobriquet of Mr. CalMac, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman advance one of the contracts and give it to Fergusons of Port Glasgow in order to ease the parlous circumstances of that yard?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: rose—

Dr. Godman: One moment; I have waited a long time for this question. May I point out to the Minister that bids for that yard were submitted to British Shipbuilders over a month ago? Since then we have heard nothing. The uncertainty is creating anxiety. It is a disgraceful state of affairs. When will the Secretary of State for Scotland show some concern for the people of the lower Clyde? [Interruption.] Be quiet, silly old fool.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear anything out of order. Let us get on with it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: To order an earlier than planned replacement of a CalMac ferry would be more costly, and orders cannot be directed to particular yards. I assure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that any yard capable of building a CalMac ferry will be given the opportunity to tender when CalMac seeks to place orders. The hon. Gentleman's second question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. British Shipbuilders has received several bids for the yard which are still being evaluated. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is keeping in close touch with the matter.

Sir Charles Morrison: In the interests of the comfort of the passengers travelling on CalMac ships, will my hon. Friend ensure that the ships are built to take into account the fact that the weather can be rough on the west coast of Scotland? None of CalMac's present steamers seem to take account of the fact that it is often rough.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend speaks from personal experience of countless voyages to Isla. At Christmas I went on a CalMac ferry which was enormously impressive and the highest standard of service was being given.

Community Charge

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect that the poll tax has had on electoral registration in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since electoral statistics in 1989 show increases in the number of electors in some local authorities and decreases in others, it is not clear what effect, if any, the advent of the community charge has had on electoral registration.

Mr. Ross: The Minister must know that registration officers are using the valuation roll and the electoral register to impose the poll tax. Given that 25,000 young Scots are no longer on the voters' roll, will he now admit that that was one reason why the Government imposed the poll tax in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is no conclusive evidence. I shall give the hon. Gentleman three reasons for change. First, a general elect ion is certainly not imminent. Secondly, there have been changes in practice by electoral registration officers. Thirdly, there have been changes in dual registration which has taken place, quite legitimately, for example, by students and second home owners. In a considerable number of authorities, the number of electors has increased. That has happened in 19 districts and in two regions and two island authorities.

Mr. McKelvey: Does not the Minister realise that in a well-heeled district where residents will gain from the poll tax they will, of course, register. In areas such as mine, Kilmarnock, many people are caught in the poverty trap. I can well afford to pay the poll tax and will make a profit from it. I shall refuse to pay the poll tax, sound in the knowledge that it will be extracted at source. However,. those people who, unlike me, are unemployed and cannot pay the poll tax will, for the first time, find that the tax can be extracted from their benefits, not by negotiation or agreement, but by mandate.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If there is any grain of truth in the allegations that the drop in the roll is in any way attributable to the community charge, and that people are seeking to avoid their responsibilities, even if they receive a rebate, hon. Members who encourage non-payment of the community charge have a heavy responsibility to bear. I have a Labour party leaflet which says:
There is a country where the right to vote was won after years of tong and bitter struggle. The present government wants to change that right. They are making all adults pay to be registered.
Not only is that completely untrue but it provides a disincentive for people to register on the electoral roll which is their inalienable human right.

NHS Reform

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had supporting the proposals for reform of the National Health Service.

Mr. Rifkind: Most submissions on the White Paper have shown strong support for certain proposals and criticism of others.

Dr. Moonie: Surprise, surprise. I have received 600 repesentations on the proposals, and all of them have been negative. I suppose that that is hardly surprising either. One proposal that most Opposition Members would support is the one involving computerisation in hospitals. How many health boards in Scotland have the full complement of computer staff?

Mr. Rifkind: I would need notice of that question, but I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman is provided with the necessary information. I was surprised to hear him say that all the 600 representations that he has received were negative, because the hon. Gentleman might assist us in putting the other side of the coin. In fact, he has already done so. A rather splendid document was issued by the Labour party on 12 April and signed by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). On page 3, there is a heading:
"What's good in the White Paper:"
It goes on to tell us:
Quality of care … efficiency in the delivery of care … more information available to consultants and general practitioners … further devolution of management to hospital and unit level … a flexible accounting system to reflect clinical led doctors/patient choice … audit.
I can only express the hope, but not the expectation, that the BMA will prove as objective as the hon. Gentleman in realising the many virtues in the White Paper.

Community Charge

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has regarding the reductions in combined rent and rate bills for tenants in the private sector following the implementation of the poll tax.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Office has received a number of representations from tenants about the level of the their rents following the introduction of the

community charge. In addition, several hon. Members, together with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and some individual authorities, have made general representations on this matter.

Mr. Griffiths: Do the Minister and the Secretary of State realise that thousands of landlords in Scotland are both pocketing the existing rate charges and ensuring that their residents pay the poll tax? Up to £30 million is being made in windfall gains from the collection of such phantom rates. Why does the Minister not bring in legislation similar to section 16 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 to make it illegal for landlords to charge for rates that they are not collecting?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to say that there is a remedy for all the tenants concerned. If the tenancy is regulated, the rent should be registered with the rent officer; if it is an assured tenancy, the tenant will have a written statement of the terms of the tenancy to identify any element for rates. [Interruption.] That is in the Scottish Act, and it was the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) who particularly asked for the concession to be made.
The leaflet "Tenants and the Community Charge" was drafted specifically to ensure that tenants were aware of their rights in this connection. The leaflet has been circulated to local authorities, housing associations, Scottish Homes and others, but the key message to tenants is that the remedies are there and available to them if they believe that their landlords are wrongly seeking to charge them for rates.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 19 MAY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Roger Gale
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
Mr. Andrew Faulds

Points of Order

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As, for obvious reasons, we have no Scottish Law Officer here, will the Governor-General and his cronies ensure that the ruling in a Sheffield court regarding the protection of Manpower Services Commission trainees will prevail in Scotland? Will compensation be paid to the McCormack family, and to other families who have suffered in the past? This is an important point.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman asked that question during Scottish Question Time, although he may not have liked the answer. There are other ways for him to seek an answer, and if he would like to come and see me I might be able to give him a hint.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried that as yet the Government appear to have made no statement about the events taking place at Risley. Can you tell us when a statement is likely to be made? This is a matter of concern not only for officers but for those who remain at the centre.

Mr. Speaker: I have received no indication of a statement.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although you have been given no indication that there is to be a statement, the Leader of the House is present, and I should like, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to associate myself with the request that a statement be made about Risley as soon as possible.

Mr. Eric S. Heller (Liverpool, Walton): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Risley closes, as we can see that it will, there will be extra problems for the Liverpool area. There must be a statement at the earliest opportunity so that the prison officers and others at the Liverpool prison know precisely what will happen.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that will be heard by those who are responsible for making statements.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSING ACT 1985 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Harry Greenway, supported by Sir Jim Spicer, Sir George Young, Mr. Robert Rhodes James, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. John Redwood and Mr. Den Dover, presented a Bill to amend the Housing Act 1985; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,
That the Human Organ Transplants Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee—[Mr. Maclean.]

Public Service Contract

Mr. David Porter: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a public service contract, with compensation on failure to supply, between community charge and ratepayers and local authorities; and between consumers and public services.
Compensation when a service is not supplied is a buzz word. It is high on the agenda of consumer affairs, and rightly so. Compensation from British Rail when it fails to deliver people, even within its scandalous 10-minute margin of error, will strike a chord with passengers everywhere. Compensation from the Post Office when the much heralded special deliveries do not arrive the next day or when first-class post does not achieve the Post Office's national 90 per cent. target will create a value-for-money and redress-for-grievance concept almost undreamt of by long-suffering customers inured to monopolies.
This Bill is about quality of service contracts linked to penalties where those are not met. Penalties provide the motivation to the industry or service provider to meet quality standards and provide compensation for individuals who suffer sub-standard service. I am grateful to the National Consumer Council for its helpful advice in preparing for this motion.
I submit that compensation from the Land Registry or the Passport Office—the average wait at the six passport offices in response to straightforward applications is still 28 working days—from agencies and from Government Departments would warm the hearts of many individuals who have found that frustration and impotence can lead to that terrible state of banging one's head against a brick wall when lapses of service occur. Compensation might even render the parliamentary answer, "I will answer my hon. Friend as soon as possible," a fob-off of the past.
A serious application of the Bill might occur where health authorities have not treated patients for specified operations within a contracted period. Compensation could be used to allow the patients to go private. That kind of incentive could be effective where management is for or against private health care and the proposed changes.
The Bill is equally applicable to local authorities. Until a few years ago, local authorities were monopoly suppliers. They determined their own levels of service. Now increasingly, through competitive tendering, the focus is on customer service. Local authority managers are more arrangers of a mix of cost-effective options to deliver to their communities the service and care increasingly demanded of them. Public service contracts are a logical evolution from that. They can cover everything from a council's statutory obligations to emptying bins and keeping streets free from litter. The local government ombudsman already investigates reports of maladministration. If maladministration is found, he should be given powers to order compensation for the consumer, community charge payer or ratepayer.
Customer complaints about British Rail rose sharply in the 1980s from 60,000 a year to 92,000 a year. The figure was rising until 1986 when the publication of the figures was stopped. The Central Transport Consultative Committee states that complaints from area committees are still increasing. It believes that British Rail abandoned publishing complaint figures because such information
might be used to its disadvantage.


The service offered to and from Liverpool street station since Easter can at the most charitable be described as a shambles. It typifies the problem. Vandalism on overhead lines and teething troubles with the new signalling are unavoidable. However, guards not giving information and journalists and photographers being escorted off station premises if they attempt to report the travelling public's fury is quite a different matter.
British Rail is reluctantly being forced to give the odd refund here and the occasional token compensation there. It should be dragged kicking and screaming, if necessary, into extending season tickets and paying compensation automatically. Under the rights of carriage regulations, it has no responsibility or obligation to deliver passengers in a seat or on time. Under the Bill, when a ticket is purchased a public service contract is entered into for that journey. Failure to deliver would bring agreed compensation. If a guard inspecting a ticket on InterCity found a passenger standing because no seats were left, he would issue a voucher for compensation for that service failure.
The same fundamental idea of delivery within an agreed, contracted time and within accepted comfort levels could apply to London Transport. Public service contracts, varying during the day to reflect the reality of customer use, would help London Transport management keep the paying, travelling public at the forefront of their minds.
Compensation and limited liability are now watchwords and an incentive within British Telecom. From 1 April this year, when British Telecom fails to restore a service within two days, or to provide a new service within two days of the agreed appointment date, it pays the customer £5 for every extra day of delay. Alternatively, British Telecom accepts liability for claims for loss up to limit of £5,000 for business customers and £1,000 for residential customers. That is a superb example of the private sector responding to public clamour for a better deal. That service obligation is very welcome—even though it did not apply years ago.
The Water Bill, now being considered in another place, will establish a customers' charter. Each company is required to draw up an individual code of practice about

services, terms and conditions and how to complain, together with an entitlement for domestic customers of £5 cash or credit each day that certain basic and, in effect, contracted standards are not met. In what will be a private sector industry, there is expectation of good consumer practice and compensation. The regulation and enforcement of contracts is crucial. Be it electricity, water, gas, telecommunications or whatever, the regulator must be able to intervene in the quality of supply and service standards.
The obligation to supply individuals from a monopoly advantage is not covered by the Bill but should be noted as part of the process of dealing with utilities from the consumer's viewpoint. In the United States, most states have a utilities commission that can refer to the district attorney any cause for believing that a utility has violated a lawfully enforced service standard. The attorney files either a criminal prosecution or a civil suit for compensation against the company. That leaves the individual in a position to take civil action, knowing that the company has already been found guilty of breach of service regulation, and the individual usually gets out-of-court compensation.
That is a lengthy process, and we do not need to go down that road. We can have a simpler and a far more effective right to compensation. My Bill would complement the Consumer Protection Act 1961 and a tranche of consumer legislation. Compensation in private and public services is an idea whose time has come. I commend my Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Porter, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. David Martin, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. James Paice and Mr. Tim Boswell.

PUBLIC SERVICE CONTRACT

Mr. David Porter accordingly presented a Bill to establish a public service contract, with compensation on failure to supply, between community charge and ratepayers and local authorities; and between consumers and public services: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

Glasgow, Central By-election

Mr. Jim Sillars: I beg to move,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the burgh constituency of Glasgow, Central in the room of Robert McTaggart, Esquire, deceased.
Mr. Speaker, may I —[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn wish to intervene?

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The behaviour of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) in this instance has been shameful. Robert McTaggart's family still live in the constituency. Members of the hon. Gentleman's party have been running around the constituency looking for a seat, and the man is not yet cold in his grave.

Mr. Sillars: That would be fair comment if it were not for the fact that the Labour party has gone through the perfectly legitimate process of picking its candidate and holding its initial press conferences. The Labour party candidate's photograph appears in The Scotsman today, in which he looks sound. I intend to ignore absolutely the double standards of the hon. Member for Springburn.
All of us, irrespective of party, regret that a by-election was caused by the death of Bob McTaggart, who was one of the kindest people to me after my victory in the Govan by-election. He went out of his way to tell me that, although we represented different political parties and had our differences, we represented adjoining constituencies and that there would be no differences whatsoever on matters affecting people. Like every other right hon. and hon. Member, I valued him as a human being, and it is a matter of regret that a by-election has been caused by his death.
No one in Scotland will be worried by the fact that we are debating a by-election writ which takes precedence over a guillotine motion on the so-called Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill, particularly a guillotine motion which allocates only one day for the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament to discuss the Bill on Report and Third Reading and when six English Tory Members have had ample tune in Committee to pass judgment on Scottish education and, in the view of many people, to damage it. However, this debate takes precedence.
Before I explain in full my reasons for suggesting that a by-election should be held—I am open to argument that a by-election should not be held, such is the character of these debates—I cast my mind back to the 1970s when the Labour party offered tough opposition to a Conservative Government not only on such matters, but on other procedural devices, and talked away the day and the night, together with the business and the following day's business. No doubt that opportunity will arise later.
There are several reasons for suggesting that the motion for a writ should be moved and accepted today for the by-election in Glasgow, Central. My research was stimulated by the significant speech made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 20 January 1989, when he moved the writ for the Richmond by-election. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not present, but I understand that this is an important day for England and Wales in electoral terms. The hon. Gentleman explained:

Once one gets to know the rules and procedures in any walk of life"—
and the hon. Gentleman has been here for a while—
that knowledge can be very handy. Some of us are very thorough about doing so.
I thought that on Budget day, but I was not as thorough as I should have been. The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
To get a writ through from the Back Benches, as opposed to moving it from the Dispatch Box, the first point one discovers is that it is the first item of business and should precede everything else. If a writ is to be moved on a day when there are parliamentary questions, it must be done at the beginning of business. If it is objected to, then it can be dealt with after Question Time. It can take up a considerable amount of time.
We shall prove that. He continued:
It is no bad thing for the House to discuss a writ. It may be that in future, given that Back Benchers as well as Whips can move a writ, that device will be used extensively.
That is hypothetical and remains to be seen.
I read that out because it is astonishing but true that many Members of Parliament do not know a great deal about parliamentary procedure because they are looked after by the Whips. I say that not in any pejorative sense, but because we come here as brand new Members and there is no primer to tell us anything. Someone says, "Here are the Standing Orders, here is 'Erskine May'. Go and read them." But that is extremely difficult.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: About time.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman says, "About time."

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is bedtime reading.

Mr. Sillars: It is rather heavy bedtime reading.
If an hon. Member is elected in the summer, it is difficult for him to pick up parliamentary procedures. It would be a good idea if your Department, Mr. Speaker, ran seminars for Back Benchers explaining Standing Orders and their cross-references with "Erskine May". We would all know more than we do and would he more effective when dealing with the nice gentleman, the Leader of the House.
During the debate on the issue of the writ for the Richmond by-election, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) made a confession to the hon. Member for Bolsover. He said:
I just want to thank my hon. Friend because by his deep reading of 'Erskine May', he has revealed that there are things in it which he wotted not of. We have not a lot of privileges on the Back Benches, but I now gather that we have privileges that we did not know about. My hon. Friend will remember that I said to him this morning that I did not know that a Back Bencher could move a writ. We have a tendency to convey to people that we Back Benchers know everything, but it is obvious that we do not. My hon. Friend has taught me that I can move a writ. I should like to try some time, so I shall study the procedure.
An hon. Member of such a long experience did not know that he could move a writ for a by-election. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—

Mr. Eric S. Hefter: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman as I know that some of my hon. Friends do not want this debate to continue—nor do I particularly. Some hon. Members who were elected to the House in 1964 listened to people such as Emrys Hughes, Sydney Silverman and many others. We learned much about parliamentary procedure from them. Hon. Members who are newly elected to the House learn by listening and participating in debates. I make that point


because Emrys Hughes and those from whom I learned helped me to understand "Erskine May"—a great tome that I should not want to carry to bed with me. The hon. Gentleman should take that into consideration.

Mr. Sillars: One of the difficulties is that "Erskine May" is occasionally amended. Indeed, your rulings, Mr. Speaker, can amend it. There is the further problem that Standing Orders change frequently.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) mentioned Emrys Hughes. I most remember him for his remark in the 1966 general election that the only difference between a Tory Government and the great train robbers was that the great train robbers forgot to be elected. I remember Emrys Hughes saying that from a platform in Ayrshire.

Mr. Brian Wilson: As Emrys Hughes said, never trust a traitor.

Mr. David Winnick: Emrys Hughes was never a traitor to the Labour movement.

Mr. Sillars: That is right; and I am not a traitor to the Socialist movement.
There is a danger of my being drawn outside the parameters of the debate. I shall be careful about that; I do not want another expulsion. I am trying to read the wise words of the hon. Member for Billericay, who intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover. This shows how wide, and at the same time how narrow, this debate is. The hon. Lady said:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that by-elections are generally seen as a barometer of public opinion.
That is an important point.
There is another important matter. What happens if a writ is moved and defeated? The hon. Member for Bolsover has done a great deal of reseach and I compliment him on that. He said:
At least one Conservative Member has spoken of dilatory action. It was suggested a few days ago that the moving of a writ was a means of developing such action. The Clerks were unsure of the ground here. This has been a learning process for me, my hon. Friends and those people who advise the Chair, because that point was a matter for consideration. I shall not name names, but there was a complete blank on the question as to whether it was possible for a further writ to be moved within days of another having been moved and not dealt with satisfactorily. That very question was a puzzle for at least a week.
So far as I understand it—I shall be on the record in Hansard—the matter has been resolved.
So far as I am aware, there has been no correction to that authoritative statement by the hon. Member for Bolsover. He said:
The writ can be moved again. However, a writ cannot be moved again—this is another part of the learning process—if it is defeated. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that I am not hereabouts trying to get it defeated. I would not attempt to do that, because I want to win over the House and get the writ accepted; but, if I thought for one moment that I could not carry a majority, I would make absolutely sure that it was not defeated. If it is defeated, that is a different question. That would mean that the writ would fall for the rest of the Session, and none of us want that."—[Official Report, 20 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 592–601.]

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What has that to do with the price of haggis?

Mr. Sillars: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's intervention is intended as an insult, but I do not take it as such.
That is the position on whether the writ when moved can be defeated and on when it is moved but does not reach a vote. May I refer also—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hesitation.

Mr. Sillars: There will be one or two hesitations.
In column 634 of the same debate, the hon. Member for Bolsover is reported as noting the number of political issues that can be raised, which is part of the drawing of parameters in a debate of this kind.
It is worth having a look at "Erskine May". I hope that no one objects, but one must start at page 26, move on to page 27 and then go much further. Under "New Writs" on page 26 "Erskine May" states:
Whenever vacancies occur"—
[Interruption.] I am not saying anything that differs from the statement of the hon. Member for Bolsover in the sense of explaining the background to this writ and the procedural basis upon which I am moving it. "Erskine May" states:
Whenever vacancies occur in the House of Commons from any legal cause, after the original issue of writs for a new Parliament by the Crown, writs are issued out of Chancery by a warrant from the Speaker, which he issues, when the House is sitting, upon the order of the House of Commons. The causes of vacancy are the death of Members or their succession to a peerage, the acceptance of a disqualifying office, the elevation of Members to the peerage, bankruptcy, lunacy, the establishment of any other legal disqualification for sitting and voting in the House of Commons, and the determination of election judges that elections or returns are void.
"Erskine May" goes on to deal with "Vacancies during a session". I shall not weary you with that, Mr. Speaker, because you must have read these passages several times, if not in preparation for me, at least in preparation for the hon. Member for Bolsover when he moved his writ.
I shall refer not only to Scottish but to United Kingdom issues. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I shall be invoking your own good authority. On 6 March, at the start of our proceedings on the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) raised a point of order. He said:
We would be happy—I am sure that I speak for all Scottish Opposition Members—if the House would leave all the proceedings on the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill to the individual votes of Scottish Members.
You, Mr. Speaker, replied:
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, and long may it remain so."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 622.]
You are perfectly entitled to hold that view—I accept that —but your remarks must mean that matters relevant throughout the United Kingdom are relevant to a debate on the issue of a by-election writ in any constituency in the United Kingdom.
When I had read "Erskine May", I read Professor Bradley, professor of constitutional law at Edinburgh university, who is such an authority on constitutional law that Lord Denning has been known to use him when trying to circumvent the rule that judges cannot refer to Hansard when interpreting an Act of Parliament. One is allowed to quote authoritative works of lawyers in court, so Lord Denning has been able to quote Professor Bradley quoting


Hansard. I say that not so much to praise Professor Bradley as to show that he is an authority on constitutional legal matters.
I was astonished to read—we all have something to learn—that there is no rule about moving a writ. The moving of a writ rests upon the decision of the Government Whips if a seat has previously been held by a member of the governing party or on the decision of the Opposition Whips if the seat has been held by the Opposition. There is no hard and fast rule, so, in theory, we could leave people unrepresented for a very long time.
The convention is that a writ must be moved within three months. That arose when Dick Taverne resigned over the European Community, and the writ for the Lincoln by-election was not moved for six months. There were several rows, and agreement was reached through the usual channels that writs should be moved within three months.
That made me think about the relationship of this House and the political parties with the electors and led me to question whose primary interest is at stake when we decide to move a writ. Is it that of the people and their need to be represented, or is it that of the political parties, which need tactics and manoeuvrability? I concluded that it was not the interests of the people. I have some experience of by-elections. As Labour Members constantly remind me, I used to be a member of the Labour party. I was taught under the Chief Whip-ship of Bob Mellish, who was a past master in these matters.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Unlike the present crowd.

Mr. Sillars: I did not say that; the hon. Member up there said it.

Mr. Faulds: It was not "the hon. Member up there" who said it; it was the hon. Member for Warley, East.

Mr. Sillars: I apologise, but I have not yet caught up with the boundary changes that took place while I was away from the House.
There is no justifiable democratic reason for the practices that have obtained hitherto in respect of by-election writs. The proprietorial instinct displayed in this place is offensive to those democratic principles. Political parties seem to believe that they own seats and, in a sense, people. We talk of "their seat"; it is normal parlance. We hear that a seat is "a Labour seat", "a Tory seat", "an SLD seat" or "an SNP seat". Of course it is not. The political parties are given power by the people for a given length of time. An accident, death or resignation can end the link between the people and the party. It is the people with whom we should be concerned.
The political parties manipulate by-election dates. I have some experience of that and I confess my past guilt. When I was the Labour candidate in the South Ayrshire by-election I was consulted by the Labour party's national agent, Ron Hayward, about the best date for the by-election. We took into account such factors as the compilation of the electoral register, but the main factor was party advantage. On that occasion, I was the beneficiary. Last autumn, in Govan, I was a victim of the political parties' ability to manipulate the dates. The writ was issued on the day on which Bruce Millan resigned. We all know that the Labour party decided that a snap election would be the best way to outflank the SNP.

Labour thought that we would not have time to get our organisation going because we would have a cold start. That mistake in tactical judgment is irrelevent to my principal point, that the decision was made by reference to the Labour party's tactical need at the time.
The electors of Vale of Glamorgan vote tomorrow. We are adult politicians and I do not think that any of us would dispute the fact that the Tory party has tried to bury that by-election among the England and Wales county elections. The Tories fear a defeat and hope that people will lose sight of it among other results elsewhere. It will be seen as only one factor among many in people's assessment of 10 years of the Prime Minister's dictatorship of the country. I think that that is wrong, and that the needs of the people for representation should determine by-election dates. Those needs should he made the highest consideration, and that principle should be formalised either in "Erskine May" or in our Standing Orders so that party advantage is no longer the prime factor.
I worry that the Labour party will attempt—it is normal practice—to set a date for the Glasgow, Central by-election to bury it in the European election campaign, for a variety of tactical reasons. Perhaps Labour thinks that SNP will be overstretched if it has to run European and parliamentary elections at the same time, and that people will not be able to congregate in Glasgow, Central as they did in Govan because they will be trying to win in the north-east and in the south. There is also a wee bit of worry about what the result would be, and it would be quite nice for the Labour party to bury that as well. Everyone in the world leaks, and the political parties are no different. There have been leaks in the Scottish press to the effect that the Scottish Labour party has fixed its eye on 15 June, for that very reason.
Matters of domestic sovereignty over which Parliament still has absolute control—or matters of shared sovereignty involving a decision to cast a vote in Brussels or elsewhere—should not be taken into the context of a European election. Matters of domestic sovereignty should be isolated so that people may understand the issues and may be given the opportunity to decide who they want to represent them and on which issues. I suggest that we should consider the different ways in which a vacancy can occur and fix these matters in relation to that.
Some people do not realise it, but the House still has enormous sovereignty. For example, the Government decide the poll tax, policy in the National Health Service, and the monetary policy that affects interest rates The Government determine what will happen to the Scottish Development Agency, which set up the Scottish homes organisation, which decides whether there will be legal reform and, if so, what measure we will get. The Government produce social security benefits. That has nothing to do with Europe. Therefore, it is important that the two mandates are separated. There can be a party advantage, but that is not the right way to go about it.
Opposed to my point of view, it could be pleaded that I am exercising the countervailing right within the rules to prevent that happening. According to pages 326 and 327 of "Erskine May", a Back-Bench Member has the right to move the writ for a by-election, which would take it out of the European elections as one could have done to take the Vale of Glamorgan out of the county elections.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a powerful


argument for taking the choice of the date of by-elections from parties and making it a constitutional matter. He could tap an equally rich vein in respect of general elections. They should not be a matter of party advantage, either. Are he and his colleagues in the Scottish National party prepared to participate in the procedures of the House, including perhaps a Speaker's conference or a Select Committee properly to consider those matters in the normal parliamentary way?

Mr. Sillars: That is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman is an international lawyer and has a great interest in constitutional matters. He made a fair point. A Speaker's conference would clearly be beneficial. He asked whether we would participate. Of course, my colleagues and I would participate. Whenever there is an extension of democracy, the hon. Gentleman will find us participating. If I were to pursue that point, I might go outside the boundaries of order, and I am careful and anxious not to do that.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) was not given to doing exactly what the Whips told him. I have known him for a long time. He is the sort of chap who, because of democratic issues, would be compelled to move such a writ on his own initiative. However, there are other folk who are not of the same calibre as my hon. Friend. We are all politicians. Some folk would like to become Ministers or reach the Front Bench. Being in my unusual position, I am not subject to that pressure.

Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Gentleman was at one time.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. As I said, I was taught under Bob Mellish. That was a rough experience. I was subjected to all the pressures that a Whips Office could bring to bear on a potential rebel. The hon. Gentleman will concede that it did not work. I have known it to work in other cases.

Mr. Heller: It did not work in my case.

Mr. Sillars: No. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell the House about it later.
We cannot rely on the individual being able to withstand pressure in the House. If the SLD wished to make formal submissions through the usual channels, it would be useful to have a Speaker's conference on a range of matters, such as how we run the business here and how it affects people outside and our relations with them. We could put forward some ideas. That is part of the reason for arguing about the writ today.
There are two or three circumstances in which vacancies arise. First, there are straight forward resignations such as those of the two chaps who went off to Brussels to become commissioners. Secondly, there is a forced resignation—a Stonehouse-type situation—because matters become impossible or intolerable. Thirdly, there is death, where there is a common principle.
Parties need time to select candidates. I am not naive about that. The people count, but political organisations are the lifeblood of a modern democracy. For all the things that are said about political parties, they are extremely important to a democratic society. Parties must be

acknowledged and the mechanisms must be given time to operate. There must be nominations and consultations. They differ.
The Labour party deals with affiliated organisations which have the right to nominate to the constituency Labour party general committee. I stand open to correction, but that list of nominations is examined by the executive of the general management committee to produce a short list. A new system has been introduced since my days in the Labour party. Names are taken to the national executive of the Labour party and, ultimately, a short list is handed back to the general management committee, which then makes the final decision on who the respective candidate is to be, and he is then endorsed by the national executive. One could complain that that is a somewhat elaborate system, but it is the Labour party's system and it is entitled to it.
The Communist party has a much shorter system. That party is likely to run in the Glasgow, Central by-election. The Scottish Socialist party, a new party in Scotland, has selected a candidate. We do not know enough about that party to know what its selection procedure is. The Tories go through whatever procedure they have. The Scottish National party has another procedure. Potential candidates are interviewed by an election committee. The election committee draws up a short list of candidates, which ultimately goes through our system, and the constituency association chooses a candidate.
It does not matter if it takes the Labour party a week longer than the SNP, or the Tories three days less than the Labour party. Four weeks are adequate. If a vacancy occurs at Christmas, we can make adjustments. On a resignation, a writ could be moved four weeks from the date when the Member resigned from the House of Commons. After a three-week election campaign and seven weeks after resignation, it will be over. Constituents would have had an opportunity to examine the issues, elect their Member of Parliament, and be represented in the House.
The House is only partly important. It is more important to be represented in the huge apparatus that now operates as Government. As you know from your previous and present experience, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of the legislation that goes through the House is not detailed. Most detailed legislation is in the form of statutory instruments. Any hon. Member who has had to deal with the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, local authorities or regional councils knows how huge the apparatus of Government is. It is important that ordinary people in the street, electors with problems at local, regional and national level, should have an elected representative—it does not matter who he happens to be in the United Kingdom—who has authority to open doors, get answers to questions, find remedies and end injustice for his constituents. Seven weeks are ample.
The case of a death in a constituency is slightly different. One of the most objectionable aspects of the death of Bob McTaggart was the almost instant public press speculation about the coming electoral contest. Within my own family, I had reason to object personally to what happened, as we were placed in a most invidious position. Several hon. Members were placed in such a position. On the night that Bob McTaggart died, one of the television programmes in Scotland passed off his death and spent about 15 minutes analysing what would happen at the by-election. I do not dispute the need for


conventions, and perhaps there should be a convention with the press that, other than report the fact that someone has died, for at least four days afterwards there should be no other comment, and the family should have time to mourn and grieve without being upset by the kinds of comment that appeared in the press at the time of Bob McTaggart's death. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you did not mind my digression.
After a death in a constituency, the timetable should take account of the necessary human decencies. I suggest that two weeks should be allowed for the family to mourn and start to pull themselves together. There could be four weeks allowed for the selection procedure, and three weeks for the by-election campaign. Thus the time between the death and a Member taking his seat in this place would be nine weeks, a reasonable time, given that we are talking about a situation in which a family is in emotional difficulty.
It is also important that an independent timetable should operate, because of the significance of the by-election process. The hon. Member for Billericay said, during the Richmond by-election writ debate, that by-elections are regarded as a barometer of public opinion on certain issues at a certain time. Often by-elections are the key turning points in politics. Because of the strange, magic chemistry that operates, a by-election in one area is regarded by all pundits and practising politicians as making a key judgment for the whole nation. I am sure that that will be said of the Vale of Glamorgan by-election tomorrow.

Mr. Tam Da!yell: On a point of order. On 1 February, I opposed the moving of the writ for a by-election at Richmond. I was given the strictest instructions to refer to no other by-election and to limit my remarks to the point of Sir Leon Brittan and the Richmond by-election. Has there been any relaxation of the rules, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It will not surprise the House or the hon. Gentleman to know that I have been listening with the greatest care. Until now, I have not heard anything out of order.

Mr. Sillars: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Speaker, because I do not intend to stray beyond the permissible boundaries of this debate. The by-election for the hon. Gentleman's own seat of Linlithgow in 1962 was regarded as a turning point. I remember demonstrating outside the playhouse in Ayr when Harold Macmillan told the Conservatives that they had fallen very low in the hon. Gentleman's poll at the time. I do not want to upset the hon. Gentleman, because he is a tenacious man. I do not want to get him started on Leon Brittan, but if he stays long enough he will find that Leon Brittan is likely to figure in some way in the Glasgow, Central by-election issues —and that will be raised, not by me but by a very senior Conservative.

Mr. Heffer: The Labour party will win the election tomorrow handsomely.

Mr. Sillars: I am delighted to hear that, because anything that inflicts a defeat on the Tory Government, particularly after 10 years, is delightful.
Some by-elections have a special X factor, and we believe that their results are widely important. The Scots are canny people, not given to great emotional splurges.

That is particularly true of individuals in the west of Scotland. There is a wide belief in Scotland that the Glasgow, Central by-election will be a major test of public opinion. I am not permitted to debate or give my own opinion on the issues involved as that would be out of order. That is a matter for the by-election itself. I have quoted the remarks of the hon. Members for Bolsover and for Billericay. It is certainly permissible on a Friday to refer to various issues that the electorate should address.
Another reason for my moving the writ this afternoon is that these issues command the attention of the people in Glasgow, Central who are regarded by many people as speaking on behalf of the much wider community in Scotland, and I believe that the Labour party would say that it was a community wider than Scotland.
The by-election also represents a very important test of all the political parties, because all the various positions could be wrapped up in the European election. As far as I am aware, all the candidates of the major parties have now been picked. An article in the Glasgow Herald is headed "Candidate chosen", and states:
An advertising executive from Largs has been selected as the Tory party's candidate for the forthcoming Glasgow, Central by-election. Mr. Alec Alan Hogarth aged 23, who was educated at Stirling university, was the youngest of five candidates shortlisted by the local party association for the by-election caused by the death of Labour's Mr. Bob McTaggart.
His candidature is an interesting factor because the Labour party is strenuously arguing that it will mount a legal challenge to the amount of advertising being carried out. Therefore, the living form of the Tory candidate raises one of the issues that will be before the people of Glasgow, Central. This is an issue that Her Majesty's Opposition want to take up with the Government—whether the Government are properly using money on advertising for objective matters or for party political matters. It is not up to me at this time to comment on that matter, but this highlights the importance of the issues before the people at this by-election.
As I said earlier, a new party, the Scottish Socialist party, has been formed by the former leader of the Labour group on Edinburgh district council, Alex Wood, a man for whom I have a great deal of regard. I hope that members of the Labour party retain for him the same personal regard, despite the fact that they may differ politically. Mr. Wood's party is running on an extraordinary ticket compared to the others. It is arguing that Scotland should not be part of the European Community.

Mr. Lambie: Hear, hear.

Mr. Sillars: I have no doubt that Alex Wood would like the hon. Gentleman to support him, but I think that there would be differences in other areas of that platform.
Then there is the Green party. I do not think that anyone doubts that the participation of the Green party —I say this as someone who is not a member of it—is important in the parliamentary democratic process.
There will be fringe candidates as well. An article in The Scotsman of 2 May is headed:
Former vice girl considers Glasgow's by-election fight".
It states:
Lindi St-Claire, the former vice girl who stood as Miss Whiplash in the Richmond by-election, revealed yesterday she is considering standing in Glasgow, Central. Ms. St-Claire, who is campaigning in the Vale of Glamorgan by-election"—


now I have mentioned both the Vale of Glamorgan and Richmond, Yorks by-elections—
said yesterday that she had dropped the frivolous platform that she had at Richmond and now had a serious manifesto.
We shall have to wait and see what it is. It is important to note that the candidates are now lined up and that new political parties want to see how they get on in the political debate among the people of Glasgow, Central. That is one of the reasons that the House should accept the moving of the writ this afternoon.
I am arguing for a by-election that is separate from the European elections, because such a by-election, standing on its own, lays bare the important issues. It is an open test of public opinion on crucial issues. Local issues are involved, and it is important that a spotlight falls on an area in which there is a by-election because that often draws national attention to something that might be a local issue, but which requires the mobilisation of national or even wider resources to tackle it. In Govan, one local issue that emerged to unite all the candidates—nobody disagreed—was drugs abuse and the anxiety of mothers and fathers, especially mothers, about the condition of their young people who were denied work and who were often driven into abusing drugs to get by on a day-to-day basis.
That issue received national attention, wide action has been taken in the Govan area; and many people are now paying attention to that problem. I simply want to prove that local issues can arise during a by-election and that the publicity can benefit the local people and their needs.
There are also national issues in which the parties can test real live opinion through people casting their vote in the ballot box, as distinct from relying on the opinion of pollsters. Candidates can test local opinions and see whether they can be elected Member of Parliament as a living manifestation of the electorate's endorsement of their views. The other side of the coin is that there could be a manifestation of a rejection on the views of certain political parties.
I hope to persuade the House this afternoon of the need for an early by-election. I see that I have the keen attention of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), and no doubt during the by-election he will want to mount his latest hobby horse, which is the question of a referendum on the Union. As we pass each other in the streets of Glasgow, Central, and as the hon. Gentleman addresses vast numbers of people, he will be able to press home before the electors his idea of a one-question referendum. It will be interesting, and he should be given the opportunity to do so. It is not a position with which I agree, but I cannot comment on that this afternoon other than to note that that is the hon. Gentleman's position and that it should be tested. It could be argued that that is a legitimate proposal—I do not argue that—but one thing that is not in the question is his right to put forward that idea.
If I am to persuade the House to favour an early by-election, I must pray in aid the issues and the reasons for having an early test rather than a test on 15 June, when we could be buried in the European elections. I shall start with the local issues, and the best way of doing that is to describe the constituency. That will be handy because I am sure that we shall be inundated with English Members of Parliament who will get on the plane at Heathrow—or

perhaps Gatwick if they prefer that service—and land at Glasgow. However, I shall take a bet that some will land in Edinburgh, not knowing quite which airport is which, but ultimately they will reach Glasgow, Central.
In a city in which one is a stranger, it almost impossible to say where its boundaries are and to assess its make-up. My own constituency of Glasgow, Govan—I say "my own" not in any proprietorial sense but to delineate it from Glasgow, Central—abuts that of Glasgow, Central, and it is sometimes hard to see where the boundary is. It must be the same in the city of Liverpool. As a Glasgow Member, I often receive letters from people who think that I am their Member of Parliament, but in fact they live just outside my constituency; and people in Govan might write to the Member of Parliament in an adjacent constituency, thinking that that hon. Member is their Member of Parliament.
I shall profile the constituency. Everybody should try to hold on to their copy of Hansard, because I shall try to be as accurate and objective as possible. There will be a big run on Hansard by English Tory MPs—I see Conservative Members nodding, and I pleased to note that those Members of Parliament will be coming up to Scotland, because they are in for an education when they come.
The constituency has been put together as a result of various boundary changes. Physically, the bulk lies to the south of the River Clyde, but important parts lie to the north also. Important landmarks in Glasgow are situated in the constituency, such as Langside, Queen's Park, Govanhill, Kinning Park, and Cessnock. These place names will bring back memories for my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) who was born in the Govan area and who will remember many of them. There are other famous places, such as Argyle street, one side of Buchanan street and Cowcaddens street. It will be interesting to see various people come up to Glasgow from the English Tory establishment. Since the last by-election, the transformation of Bridgeton Cross has been remarkable, and it will be pleasant to campaign and canvass in such areas. That is the broad geographic outline.
Parts of the constituency have a fairly transient population, mainly because of the numbers of students and nurses who live in them and who move on to other areas after they have finished their training or their studies. Those areas are concentrated around the Victoria infirmary and the Rotten Row maternity hospital. English Members must not read anything into that name; if they can stay here long enough—but not too long—I shall explain exactly what the Rotten Row maternity hospital is. There is also Duke Street hospital and the Royal infirmary. A whole range of local issues are relevant to the needs of the students and nurses in those areas. Indeed, a whole range of issues locally are affected by policies on the Health Service and a whole range of national issues also emerge, to which I shall come later.
The Crosshill and the Queen's Park areas comprise largely owner-occupied housing stock. That fact will probably excite Conservative Members because they have a strange notion that, if they turn folk into owner-occupiers, those people will become Tory voters. That is part of the social engineering that has been going on for a long time. I do not know about experiences south of the border, because I have not canvassed in England for many years—not since the tragic death of lain Macleod. Therefore, although I am not an expert on English


domestic politics, many Tories have told me that, because of the increase in owner-occupation, there has been an increase in the Tory vote. Although Crosshill and Queen's Park comprise owner-occupied housing stock, other areas comprise mainly public sector houses.
Although the owner-occupied areas will excite Tory Members, I advise the hon. Member for Walton that the thesis of those hon. Members will be proved wrong north of the border. However, let them come and find out. That is part and parcel of the democratic exercise. Hundreds of people may come up, probably not on the normal shuttle but on a charter flight to Glasgow airport.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: My hon. Friend is whetting the appetite of all hon. Members, but, if anything, he is underselling the benefits of Glasgow, Central. It is difficult to say that to my hon. Friend, as his description of the constituency has been so good, but it is the heart of Glasgow. It contains the university, the cathedral and Barony parish, and I thoroughly recommend all hon. Members to visit that constituency. Glasgow is noted as a good-hearted city; I am sure that everyone will get a great welcome and will learn a great deal about Scotland, and in particular about Glasgow, from such a visit. I am pleased to listen to my hon. Friend's description of that excellent constituency.

Mr. Sillars: My hon. Friend is kind, but judging from his opening remarks, he is a little disappointed with my speech. I am, however, on page 1 only.
Glasgow, Central is an important constituency. Its sociological make-up and housing stock are varied. It is important to deliver several important notes to get a good picture of it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East gives me time, I shall do justice to it.
In fact, we have plenty of time, as the business on the Order Paper is irrelevant to Scotland. If the Self-governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill never got through, no one would be the least bit bothered. Perhaps the Leader of the House considers that it would be a good idea to test the popularity of the Bill at the by-election. The English Tories will come up in chartered planes from Heathrow and no doubt they will be piloted by their six hon. Friends who are sitting on the Committee on that Bill.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Perhaps the plane will be piloted by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Sillars: Yes, of course. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tayside, North is no longer with us, as he is a pilot along with everything else. We would have the thrill and pleasure of watching him piloting the plane carrying the English Tory Members. He would fly over Bearsden and such places, which would be fascinating, but I must not be distracted from my speech.
I have already said that Crosshill and Queen's Park are largely made up of owner-occupied homes and that other wards of the constituency are mainly made up of public sector housing. Despite the fact that the Queen's Park and Crosshill wards have such a large proportion of owner-occupied homes, those areas have a high level of unemployment; that is a local issue which must be addressed. However, unemployment is highest in the central and Carlton wards of the constituency.
Another important consideration is that the constituency is largely made up of the dispersed population

from the old Gorbals area. All those folk coming up from south of the border will be amazed at the transformation of some parts of Glasgow. They will discover that what they associated with the Gorbals and the Glasgow of the past is unfair.
There are several relatively large ethnic minority concentrations in the wards of the constituency. The largest concentration is in Crosshill, where the new Commonwealth population account for 3·18 per cent. of the total population. Some 4·62 per cent. of the population were born in Pakistan. Part of the population is Chinese, some people come from Pakistan, and there are a number of Moslems in the constituency. The mosque is situated in that constituency; it is not only the religious heart, but the social heart of the Islamic community in Glasgow.
Another plug for Glasgow—I make no apologies for it —is that this year, the city is again repeating the Mayfest. The festival attracts many people from all over Glasgow and further afield. Glasgow will also be the cultural city of Europe in 1990, which is an acknowledgement of the transformation of some parts of the city. It would be wrong to say that the entire area has been transformed, because we still face enormous problems in the peripheral estates and in some of the inner-city areas. Nevertheless, Glasgow has made a great effort, which has been recognised.
Architecturally, Glasgow is a beautiful city. There are arguments between Glasgow and Edinburgh as to which, architecturally, is the loveliest city and which is the most important city in cultural terms. One of the issues that is likely to arise at the by-election comes from the Tory party. I see that the Chief Whip is looking worried, because he knows that when the Tories produce issues in Scotland they sometimes rebound on them. The Tory group on Glasgow district council wants to depose Edinburgh as the capital city of Scotland. The heart of the administration would be based in Glasgow, Central. The Tories are hard up for Scottish issues, but perhaps that suggestion will become a major debating point.
I have a home in Edinburgh and I have grown to love that city although I come from the west coast of Scotland. People might be tempted to consider the Glasgow Tory suggestion as part of the Edinburgh-Glasgow animosity, but there is an economic reasoning behind such a transfer, which would be relevant to the by-election. If the capital transferred to Glasgow, civil servants would transfer from Edinburgh. If Scotland became a free and independent nation within the European Community, there would be an aggregation of embassies and foreign organisation around its capital. Such a development would create jobs. Therefore, there is more than just the old Glasgow-Edinburgh animosity behind the idea proposed by the Tory leader on the Glasgow district council.
I will not bore the House with the previous election result, as I do not believe that the next one will mirror it. What about the people of Glasgow, Central, about whom we should be concerned? The population of the constituency is in a constant state of flux, although the overall size of the population has been relatively static for some years. The population is diverse, as it ranges from the Chinese community of Garnethill, the various ethnic minorities south of the river, the so-called yuppies in the Merchant city, to the homeless men who frequent the city's hostels. It is important to remember that there are many unemployed in the constituency.
The constituency is also diverse in terms of where the young and the elderly are based. The first-voting age group, the 15 to 24-year-olds, represent 10,700 people, equivalent to 17·37 per cent. of the total population of the constituency. At the last count, there were 28,875 people in the 24 to 64-year-old age group, who account for 46·89 per cent. of the population. The mature section of the population is therefore relatively large. Those people have experienced life, they understand it and they have suffered a lot of knocks. The people who have endured a great deal throughout their lives, those aged 60 to 65 and over, account for 13,570 of the population, or 22·04 per cent. That percentage is higher than that for the city of Glasgow, so the local and national services for the elderly will be important in the by-election.
As I have said, various ethnic minorities are represented in the constituency. Garnethill is home to the Chinese community, and a relatively large number of Asian families live south of the river. Hon. Members who visit Glasgow will be aware that many Chinese people operate businesses in the centre of the city as well as in Glasgow, Central. The Chinese restaurants and take-aways provide an excellent service.
That community is interested in a number of domestic-foreign affairs issues which I am sure will be important to the by-election. I hope that I can prove to the House that, because of the issue which is of great importance to the Chinese community of Glasgow, Central—I shall discuss it later—it is necessary that we have an early by-election. In that way, the community could put its point of view, and elect a representative here who will argue its case strongly.
Then there is housing. This is all part of the profile. The public rented sector, including Scottish Homes, as it is now called—we used to call it the Scottish Special Housing Association—has 14,274 houses, representing 48·3 per cent. of the constituency's housing stock. Owner-occupiers have 9,615 houses, representing 32·51 per cent. of the total. That is higher than the average in some parts of western Scotland. The private rented sector totals 2,705, which is 9·14 per cent. Housing associations have 1,419 houses, representing 4·8 per cent.
There are only 367 sheltered units, representing 1·24 per cent. of the housing stock. That small number is not because of the failure of anyone representing the people to argue for resources to meet the needs of all people. Whatever political differences we may have in the House, we are all aware that constant pressure has been exercised to try to get the number of sheltered houses that our old people require. That will be a big issue in the election.
Next, there are vacant dwellings. I am not saying that the Leader of the House does not know anything about Scottish affairs. I would not insult him in that way. He has to sit through various debates to learn what is happening, but he would be the first to admit that he is not immersed in the detail of the Scottish political scene. He is nodding graciously. I thank him, and I say that in the kindest spirit.
I am glad that the Minister of State is here, because he can confirm that one of the biggest debates between Labour local authorities and the central Tory Administration is about vacant dwellings. The Tory central Administration keeps arguing that the number of vacant dwellings is entirely the fault of the local authority, and the local authority points out frequently that it would

be better able to manage the housing stock if it had adequate capital and management money available. Again, that will emerge as a big issue.
The 23-year-old advertising executive who is the Conservative candidate will need to bone up on the issue. I am sure that in our candidate and in the Labour candidate he will face folk who are extremely well briefed on the problem of vacant dwellings. As I have said, the owner-occupied sector is relatively large. Most of those dwellings are in the areas that I have specified.
I should like to concentrate for a moment on housing associations. Although they provide a minority of the housing stock, housing associations in Glasgow are unique. They are mostly community-based. They do not have many counterparts south of the border. Most of the housing associations in the Scottish housing association movement are community-based. Not only do they provide homes but they manage them sensibly.
One great benefit of community-based housing associations is that they realise that there has been an exodus of talented people from the core of Glasgow. In Bill Taylor's days—Bill Taylor used to be the eminent leader of the Labour group in Glasgow when it was a city rather than a district council—the policy was to decant people. I think that there were 23 central development areas from which people were decanted to Girvan in Ayrshire, to East Kilbride, to Glenrothes and to Livingston new town. Glasgow lost many talented people through that policy. I think that it was a mistake, but I understand the motivation behind it. There was a great danger of the last of the community leaders going.
Along came the community-based housing association movement. It retained the leaders because it gave them something to work at; with their talents and abilities, they could rebuild and regenerate their areas. It gave a new confidence to Bridgeton and Dalmarnock and places in Shettleston. Because there are housing associations in those areas, it means that there will be sophisticated interrogation at public meetings by members of the management committees, not only on housing but on more general matters. There is Bridgeton and Dalmarnock housing association, Govanhill housing association, the West of Scotland housing association and the Glasgow Jewish housing association.
Housing is bound to be a central issue, on which people will come to a decision in regard to the policies of the different parties.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: My hon. Friend has been comprehensive in his look at Glasgow, Central. Obviously he has done a great deal of research. Am I correct in thinking that Glasgow, Central contains Glasgow's oldest house, Provand's Lordship, which is centuries old? That house has stood for a long time. I am sure that in the election people will be thinking about other problems apart from Glasgow's heritage. They will be concerned about modern problems of housing such as homelessness and dampness.
My hon. Friend has mentioned housing associations. Does he agree that, as well as looking at Glasgow's past, we should consider its present? If we consult the records, we find that the constituency also contains the notorious wynds of Glasgow, where there were terrible housing conditions in the last century. Looking to the 21st century, I hope that housing in Glasgow, Central will be in the mind of everyone connected with the by-election. Perhaps


my hon. Friend would consider modern issues such as homelessness and dampness, and the house condition survey, which might help us all to be better informed as we approach the by-election.

Mr. Sillars: I hope to have time to touch on such matters. In regard to Provand's Lordship, I am worried that the Government may want to privatise it. It is becoming quite an attraction in the centre of the city. A great effort is being made to upgrade the area. Renovation is going on across the way at Glasgow cathedral. It is the sort of thing that the Scottish Tories—no, I think that even the Scottish Tories would not want to privatise it. I am anticipating that the planeloads of English Tories coming north of the border, the No Turning Back group, the ideologues, will look at Glasgow, Central and ask, "What can we privatise?" I am worried about some of the key landmarks of Glasgow.
Of course, it is a free country. We cannot prevent them coming up. It might be better if we did not talk about some of the historic landmarks. Then they may pass them by and not realise how important they are. They may not realise the value attached to them and they may never dream of suggesting privatisation—not to the Minister of State but to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), one of the ideological group whose anchor is south of the border. Perhaps that is another reason for getting the by-election over as quickly as possible, so that we can get these planeloads of Tories up, round the streets and back on the plane. Then we will not be subject to the possible devastation of the privatisation ideology.
I am coming to the house condition survey. There is no way that I could persuade the House to accept the motion if I did not get through to it the fact that housing is a key issue, which requires representation at its fullest. It certainly had that from the previous Member. An analysis has been published recently of the housing survey of Glasgow. I do not intend to read the whole survey; that is not necessary to give the House a full flavour of the problems that we face. The survey was published in 1987. It points to the fact that 20,000 of the private housing stock are below a tolerable standard. That is 19 per cent. of the total stock. Despite that, the Scottish Office's initial allocation for 1989–90 for the private sector is £40·5 million, £10 million less than in 1988–89 and less than half of the £91 million requested by the city of Glasgow to try to tackle the problem of deteriorating housing stock in the private sector.
As my hon. Friends know full well, a number of people can own a house, but with the mortgage rates these days, they do not generate enough income to maintain the house to the standard required, and they occasionally need help from the public purse. The majority of the houses that are below a tolerable standard are to be found on the west and south sides of the Glasgow district council area. Therefore, they are partly in the Glasgow, Central constituency. The homes of owner-occupiers aged over 75, and privately rented houses in multiple occupation, are in considerably worse repair. That is the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East wanted me to address.
The Government's recent proposals to introduce means testing for grant aid would mean that many households will fail to qualify for aid. With the state of disrepair of

some houses on the south side of the city—which embraces Glasgow, Central—that is bound to be an important issue in the campaign.
The right to work and to have a job—the unemployment level—is fundamental to working-class life. In the central area, unemployment among men is 32·8 per cent., among women it is 10·9 per cent., making a total of 23·7 per cent. In the Kingston area, there is 30·4 per cent. unemployment among men, 14·2 per cent. among women, making a total of 23·7 per cent. In Queen's Park ad Crosshill, which are the major owner-occupied areas, 18·7 per cent. of men are unemployed and 10·6 per cent. of women, making a total of 15·4 per cent. unemployment.
These are horrendous figures, which show the level of stress and strain that people in Glasgow, Central, who are working-class, are under day to day. Those people need relief and remedies as soon as possible. They need their problems brought to the fore and debated in this by-election, and to have a Member of Parliament to represent their demands for remedial measures from the Government.
I am not taking sides, because I am not allowed to do so during this debate. However, I do not think that anybody would disagree that these are pretty horrendous figures, which paint a social picture of considerable anxiety to every decent human being in our society.
Glasgow, Central has high employment, but it has major employers. No doubt it will be important for all the candidates to go round these major employers; no doubt the candidates will wish to talk to them about the possibility of increasing unemployment. I shall quote a few of them to show that I am not talking about fly-by-night companies. They include Britoil plc, the South of Scotland electricity board, which is a candidate for privatisation, so an important issue at the by-election will be to discover what the score will be for employment with that company after privatisation, Scottish Gas, Craig Nicol Ltd., Sunblest Bakeries (GLW) Ltd., S. Meadow Ltd., J. Gelfor Ltd., D. C. Thomson and Company Ltd., A. Goldberg and Sons, Lewis's Ltd., Marks and Spencer plc, Boots the Chemist Ltd., British Home Stores Ltd., the Littlewoods Organisation Ltd., Gardner Merchant Ltd., the Albany hotel, the Hospitality inn, the Ingram hotel, British Rail, Denholm Ship Management Ltd., the Post Office, British Telecom, the Clydesdale Bank plc, the Royal Bank of Scotland plc, the Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd., Scottish Boiler and General Assurance Company Ltd., the Scottish Mutual Assurance Society, Arthur Young, the Ministry of Defence, the procurator fiscal's offices, the Greater Glasgow health board.
I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not wish to try your patience, and have therefore quoted only a sample of the major employers in the constituency. Each of the employers in that list employ at least 200 people. The following employers employ over a thousand or several thousand. These are the district and regional councils, the Greater Glasgow health board, the university of Strathclyde, education in general, the retail industry in general, Britoil plc, Scottish Gas, British Rail, the various bus stations and British Telecom.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Most of the employers that my hon. Friend mentioned appeared to be in the service sector. Does he agree that one of the major problems facing us in Scotland is to restore our manufacturing base which has been so severely cut during the past 10 years


under this Administration? Many people, particularly in Glasgow, want to go into the manufacturing industry. Having said that, the service industries are important. My hon. Friend mentioned education and the university of Strathclyde. Surely the voters in that area who are employed by such organisations would want to pass a clear comment on the content of the legislation currently being dealt with in Committee, on which the Government are attempting to curtail debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is going into detail about his constituency. I should like to hear a little bit more about how he relates that information to having a by-election now.

Mr. Sillars: There is no problem for me in doing that. I am pointing out that, from this profile, we can quite easily pick out the kind of issues that demand immediate public attention and action through the election machinery that operates in this country. For example, the whole of the Glasgow, Central constituency falls in the Greater Glasgow health board area, and contains several hospitals. I understand your anxiety about the parameters of this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but what I have to say will settle your mind.
There are several hospitals within the boundaries. These include the Victoria infirmary, Duke street hospital, the Royal Samaritan hospital for women, the Royal infirmary, which is a teaching hospital, and the Rotten Row maternity hospital; and the health board is a major employer in the area. That evidence makes it pretty clear that local issues, such as the privatisation of domestic services in the hospitals will be raging issues in Glasgow, Central. There is no question of that. I found that, at the Southern General hospital in my constituency, a big issue was whether the catering and cleaning services—which are manned by low-paid workers, many of them widows—should be privatised.
It is not your fault, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but one matter of which you are not aware is that there is much tension between the community of Glasgow and those who run the Greater Glasgow health board. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State is listening to this. There is more than a deep suspicion that the Tories have loaded the membership of the Greater Glasgow health board with hard-faced Tories, who are out to privatise everything that they can get their hands on inside the Health Service in Glasgow.
We have had representations down here from the trade union movement about the number of trade unionists who have been knocked off board after board. The representation of the working-class people of Glasgow on the Greater Glasgow health board is a disgrace. That is bound to be a major issue.
Another factor of which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not be aware, but which should be registered as one reason for the by-election, is that the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board is not the most liked character throughout the city of Glasgow. The authoritarian way in which he runs the Greater Glasgow health board is deeply offensive to the communities throughout Glasgow. Nobody will be able to prevent it from being a big issue in the by-election campaign.
Drugs are a problem in Glasgow, Central, as they were in Govan. There are a number of neighbourhood watch schemes. That may sound like a good arrangement. Hon. Members may assume that crime will not be a big issue in the by-election, and wonder why that factor should influence a decision to hold an early election. The tragedy is, however, that most of the neighbourhood watch schemes are located in the Merchant city area, where new developments are taking place. There are no such schemes in the rest of the constituency, and there is considerable anxiety in those areas about the level of crime experienced under the present Government. Later, I shall quote figures relating to law reform which demonstrate the enormous increase in activity in sheriff courts and high courts since the Government came to power.
Let me point out to the Minister, who is a Scottish advocate, that the neighbourhood watch scheme is bound to be an issue. I know a bit about such schemes because I have a flat in the Merchant city area, where the scheme does not always work.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is not the real crime that committed against the Scottish working people, who have suffered tremendously under Thatcherism and will suffer again as this Parliament evolves? North of the border there is a feeling that politics belongs to the people, not just to politicians: that Socialism is a matter of fighting back, of resolving issues on the basis of community and of saying, in effect, "We can defeat this lot," because we are stronger outside than we are here. We can play games here, but we must emphasise our strength outside.
The Labour party must recognise the Scottish dimension. It must recognise that the Scottish working class is waking up and will take the fight south of the border, especially on the poll tax. Basic rights must be fought for, and civil disobedience may be necessary to defend those rights.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In commenting on those remarks, I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) will link his answer to the date of the by-election.

Mr. Sillars: However advantageous or disadvantageous it would be to go down the path laid for me by the hon. Gentleman, it would be wrong for me to do so; I accept that entirely.
I was about to explain that I have practical experience of the neighbourhood watch scheme. I thought—I am sure that the electors of Glasgow, Central who have no such scheme think this as well—that it provided almost 24-hour cover. At about I am one night, the doorbell rang: I opened the window and looked out. Below stood three scruffy lads in jerkins, jeans and baseball boots.

Mr. Jim Marshall: They were members of the SNP.

Mr. Sillars: No, they were not, believe it or not.
I thought, "Here we have three vandals." I was about to operate the neighbourhood watch scheme by crossing the landing and telling my neighbours that there were three vandals outside pressing door bells. However, I asked, "Who are you?" And they said, "We are the police."

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Come on, deal with the date of the by-election.

Mr. Sillars: If the hon. Lady waits long enough perhaps she will vote with me in the Lobby, because I am getting her wound up to support me. I am pleased that she has decided to intervene, and if she wants to get to her feet, I shall be more than happy to give way.
The "three vandals" turned out to be three policemen telling me that my car had just been "done" in the back court. There are defects in the neighbourhood watch scheme. I do not say that that is one of the major reasons for an early by-election, however; I am coming to those.
One such factor is education. Glasgow, Central is an unusual constituency, in that it contains many schools and other prestigious educational institutions, including several institutions of further and higher education—for instance, Strathclyde university, the central college of commerce, the college of building and printing, the college of nautical studies, the college of food technology, the college of technology and Langside college. The students at the university and colleges mostly live in the constituency or just outside it, and a number of the university residences are in Clyde street.
This morning Scottish Members of Parliament—including, I hope, Tory Members—were lobbied by students who had come down from Scotland about, among other things, student loans. Student loans are an important issue for many Glasgow, Central electors. Those in favour of them should have a chance to go out on to the streets and into the student unions, and to knock on the doors of student residences to try to persuade students to support the Tory candidate, who supports loans. Those of us who disagree are entitled to argue in the opposite way and to have our views tested. The concentration of prestigious educational institutions in the area means that there is also a concentration of students and a good representation of student opinion which is not found in, for example, the next-door constituency of Govan.
Another important factor is the amount of development taking place in the area. The conversion of warehousing into housing, for instance, is a major issue, and I am told that the sheriff court is being converted into a fashion centre.
There is also a foreign policy issue which is important to the people of Glasgow as a whole and to the people of Glasgow, Central in particular—the naming of Nelson Mandela square. The name is a symbol of the affinity between the people of Glasgow and Nelson Mandela, who has been gaoled for over 25 years by the white racialist regime in South Africa. It is a bone of contention between the majority of citizens and the minority in the business community, who sometimes do not like receiving letters addressed to "Nelson Mandela square". That, however, will not decide all the voting in the by-election.
An issue that affects the business community in its central setting is the St. Enoch's development. When I was a boy, my father worked for British Rail as an engine driver, in the days of steam. For a while I too worked on the railway, as a young cleaner fireman, and one of my great ambitions was to travel between Ayr and St. Enoch's as the fireman on a passenger locomotive. That happened to me only once, but St. Enoch's station used to be a great landmark in central Glasgow.
The days of steam, of course, are gone; the railway system has been reallocated and reorganised, and St. Enoch's is now a new and major development. It has been described as the world's largest greenhouse: it will he 100 ft high and nearly 800 ft long—a marvellous sight. When

people come to visit the city of culture they will be amazed and impressed by this development, which opens its doors to the public on 11 May. The development is funded by the Sears group and the Church Commissioners of the Church of England. That shows just how mobile capital can be. It cost £64·5 million to build. The development will house a number of major stores which have not had outlets in Scotland before. The immediate question must be, how can that be an issue in Glasgow, Central, when new stores will mean new jobs? It could not possibly be an issue, so there is no reason for citing it in evidence for an early by-election. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Shopkeepers at the new St. Enoch's development, the world's largest greenhouse, will be able to lease shops at £90 a square foot. However, it costs £140 per square foot to lease shops in Argyle street. That anomaly must be a major issue in the by-election. The new shopping development will have an effect on Argyle street, which is the main shopping street at the moment.
Only one or two units remain to be let in the St. Enoch's development. It is claimed that the development will create 2,500 jobs when it is fully operational. However, a big issue in the by-election will be whether those jobs shift from Argyle street to the new development or whether those jobs will be extra jobs. People will want to know what can be done about the problem facing people with shops in Argyle street who are paying £140 per square foot when there is cheaper, and in many cases better, accommodation elsewhere.
I will not weary you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with more quotes from the constituency profile. The Gear area of Glasgow touches the constituency of Glasgow, Central. That area has an important history and will no doubt be an issue in the by-election. The Gear area covers the east end of Glasgow, and renewal has made a big difference to the dereliction which used to exist there. Many nice houses have been built and there are many advanced factories. The main problem is that the number of jobs expected to be created as a result of that comprehensive attempt to solve some of the problems in that area have not materialised. That is bound to be a substantial issue in the by-election.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Before my hon. Friend leaves Argyle street, does he accept that the electors of Glasgow, Central will consider the report from the Confederation of British Industry which shows that Scottish businesses have an additional rates burden of around £250 million in comparison with their counterparts in England and Wales?
If hon. Members come to Glasgow, Central they will see the effects of that massive extra rates burden, which places an unfair burden on Scottish businesses. Regional businesses are burdened with extra rates bills, and that means closures and fewer jobs. Argyle street is a good example of a bad situation which causes great harm in Scottish cities like Glasgow. Businesses in Oxford street in London have lower rates bills than Princes street in Edinburgh. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the electors of Glasgow, Central will believe that that is a major issue. They want to see jobs created and the widest possible variety of retail and other businesses in the constituency.

Mr. Sillars: I concur with everything that my lion. Friend has said. I would like the House to support me


today, because I want to release my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East on to the streets of Glasgow, Central to campaign on the issues to which he has referred most eloquently. My hon. Friend's parents come from Glasgow. I do not believe that I will change scores of minds today. Hon. Members may not want my hon. Friend to campaign on the streets of Glasgow, Central at an early date. I can understand that, because my hon. Friend had a devastating effect on my election prospects in Glasgow, Govan. I owe him a great deal for the fact that I am in the House now.
I want to give just a glimpse of one or two important local issues and to refer to issues on which people need a Member of Parliament to go in and bat for them. On Friday 21 April 1989, the Glasgow Evening Times reported:
Special passes hit by muddle. Government red tape is depriving Strathclyde's epilepsy sufferers of cut price travel passes.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is listening to me. He is a nice man and I hope that he listens to me carefully. The paper continued:
Thousands of epileptics in Glasgow and the west of Scotland are by law eligible for half-price rail and bus passes to travel round Glasgow and the west of Scotland, but they say that the Department of Transport is making it almost impossible to apply. They have told epileptics that Strathclyde passenger transport executive cannot accept a doctor's certificate as proof.
That is unbelievable.
The Evening Times is a very accurate paper. It continued:
Instead, they must write to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea and formally apply for a driver's licence even though they know that they will be refused.
They can qualify for a pass only when they are armed with a letter of refusal.
The Rev. David Laing, the convenor of Strathclyde regional council's social work committee, said:
This is red tape for the sake of red tape.
That is the kind of thing that a Member of Parliament must attack. He said:
The Government are hell bent on making it difficult for people to receive benefits to which they are legally entitled.
That is Mr. Laing's point of view and I am not entitled in this debate to pass comment on it. However, Mrs. Vivian Carely, the development officer for the Epilepsy Association of Scotland stated that that was a
ridiculously cumbersome piece of Government legislation. The law has always said that anyone who has suffered an epilepsy attack within two years is not allowed to drive, and we accept that. However, what we cannot understand is why passengers submit this phoney driver's application, complete with a £17 cheque, which is then returned with a letter of refusal even though Swansea already know that they are not eligible to drive. There are around 12,500 epilepsy sufferers in Strathclyde, of whom about 6,500 are eligible for half price travel throughout the region.
That kind of nonsense should be tackled. Hon. Members are doing their best to deal with that matter. However, people in Glasgow, Central are in a catch-22. They cannot get a driver's licence and the doctor's certificate is not acceptable. That kind of local issue deserves an early resolution of the fact that that area needs a Member of Parliament now.
Maternity services will be another issue in the by-election. When I referred to Rotten Row earlier, I believe that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett)

laughed. That is understandable, and I will not take too much offence about that because it is a very strange name for a hospital, let alone a maternity hospital. However, Rotten Row is an ancient Glasgow name and the hospital is a worthy institution.
On 23 April this year "Scotland on Sunday" reported:
Baby hospital faces closure in health review. The Queen Mother's hospital in Glasgow, which deals with more than 3,000 births a year, is facing closure following a health board review of maternity provision. Next month, Greater Glasgow Health Board's maternity and Paediatric management team will present the board with a report recommending a number of ways to streamline the maternity service, two of which are expected to spell the end for the Queen Mother's. The package of options designed to take the service into the 21st century will include a proposal to merge the 25-year-old hospital with Glasgow Royal Maternity, better known as Rotten Row, and Stobhill maternity unit. The three would then be relocated at a custom built unit at the Royal Infirmary site, which would deal with more than 10,000 births a year.
Many people in the constituency and staff in the hospitals will have views about that.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Maternity facilities are very important for constituents and hon. Members, as those who represent Grampian region are aware. A proposal like the one described by my hon. Friend was brought forward by the health board in my constituency. As a result of pressure from me, councillors and other groups working as a cohesive unit, the Scottish Office had to set up an investigation into the maternity facilities in my constituency. Yesterday, the Scottish Office published a very effective report which has taken account of the views and made clear recommendations for improvement to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is clear that a Member of Parliament can play a vital role to ensure that the needs of his constituents are met, particularly with regard to maternity services.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating not the hon. Lady's consitituency but the writ for Glasgow, Central.

Mr. Sillars: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I can speak about Moray and Nairn. The point that my hon. Friend makes in principle is very sound, and I can dip into my own experience to prove how correct it is, and how important it is that the writ should be moved so that an election can be held and a Member of Parliament elected.
Between 1965 and 1970, before the last hospital reforms, I was a member of the Western regional hospital board. Among the earliest appointments made to that board was the convenor of the maternity services sub-committee. I had to deal with many letters to the official administration from Members of Parliament. There is no question but that when a Member of Parliament writes to a health authority requesting action or raising a point, his letter receives very special attention inside the whole administration. At the end of the day, the chain of responsibility ultimately ends with the Minister responsible.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to authorise the lowering of the blinds, because the sun is quite bright.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly have that done.

Mr. Sillars: That was a very good point of order.
I refer next to the poll tax, but not to the poll tax in its whole immorality—although I should not say that, because I am not supposed to pass comment on it—but to the poll tax in its totality. I do not know whether you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, were in the Chair when I spoke about the substantial number of privately rented houses in the Glasgow, Central constituency. I refer again to a report in the Glasgow Evening Times. One wonders what our city would do without that excellent and campaigning newspaper. On 13 April, it carried the banner headline:
Tenants warned of rents rip-off.
It reported:
Greedy landlords are cashing in on poll tax regulations. They are charging tenants the same rents as they paid when rates were part of the total rent.
The rent rip-off could be avoided, it was claimed today. Glasgow district deputy housing benefit manager Alan Sinclair said that all private tenants have the right to register their rent. By going to the rent registration officer, they could have the amount they pay fixed for three years at reasonable rate.
Mr. Sinclair said: 'We are advising all private sector tenants who come to us for help to do this. Landlords are going to make a killing out of the poll tax change. We don't have the power that English authorities do to send tenants to the registration officer. All we can do is advise. Although there are assured tenancies based on market rents. Anyone who moved in before January 2nd this year is still covered by the fair rent legislation. Glasgow district has a special private sector office in its housing benefit section at 11 George Street'.
The report goes on to comment that it is disgraceful and scandalous that people in the private rented sector are being ripped off by their landlords.
I know from my own experience in the city of Glasgow —as do other right hon. and hon. Members—that the public very often do not know their rights. We live in a very complex society and it is difficult for people to find their way around all the regulations that affect them.
In that respect, a Member of Parliament's surgery is very important. I pay tribute to the Labour Members representing constituencies adjoining Glasgow, Central. I read in The Glaswegian that a number of the late Bob McTaggart's colleagues have been holding surgeries in his area. I admire them for that and pay tribute to them for it. However, everyone knows that those hon. Members already carry a heavy surgery case load, and no one would pretend for a moment that the efforts of the hon. Members concerned are a substitute for a Member of Parliament who is plugged into the local community on a day-to-day basis and able to tackle issues such as fair rents.
I refer to another local issue that will cause a lot of trouble. If there is only one reason for holding the by-election at a very early date, it is that which I am about to describe to the House. The Glaswegian is a free sheet set up by Robert Maxwell. He is a member of the Labour party but The Glaswegian does not pretend to be a Labour party newspaper. It is delivered to every home in the area. The headline in its issue of 29 April was:
A concrete jungle. Row over £2 million car park plan for the Green.
It reported:
A £2 million plan to improve Glasgow Green has been slammed by local residents, and proposals to construct a £½ million car park on the historic and well-loved Green have been tagged a disgrace, with demands to district council to reject the idea.
The green is right in the middle of Glasgow, Central. Locals complain of lack of consultation, but their wishes

are being ignored and there is to be a concrete jungle in place of Britain's oldest park. The newspaper report continues:
Betty McAllister, chairman of the Community Council said: 'This is not on'.
We tend to speak very bluntly in Glasgow. That is something that English Members will find when they take their charter flight and land at Glasgow airport. When they arrive, they will find that the people there are very blunt speakers. There is no beating about the bush with Glasgow people.
The report states:
Betty McAllister … said: 'This is not on. The consultants say that we won't see the cars because they will landscape the area with flower boxes. How on earth can you camouflage 150 cars?' she asks. The Glaswegian can exclusively reveal that the entrance to the car park will be at the Green Dyke entrance to the Green, with access through Monteith Road. The council hope to begin construction by July,"—
that is why it is so important to elect a new Member of Parliament soon—
with the work being completed for the City of Culture 1990.
That is a real-life issue and one that must be resolved. It is one in which the constituency's Member of Parliament must be involved. The East End management committee also want to block that plan:
Ken Hamilton the deputy manager of the committee, said: 'We are geared towards promoting the east end of the city, and I can't see how having a large expanse of concrete in the middle of the Green can help our cause.' Councillor Crawford, convenor of the council's Parks Committee, said: 'The alternatives put to us regarding the problem of parking in this area of the city are not feasible. The plans for the future of Glasgow Green are still in the planning stages and the people who have objections to them will have the chance to make their objections known'.
However, the plan is to start work in July.
Glasgow Green is an historical area in the Glasgow, Central constituency that has incredible connotations for the Scottish working class movement. I remember the great demonstrations that were held there in 1971 against the Heath Government's Industrial Relations Bill. I remember 15,000 Transport and General Workers Union members, together with members of the Boilermakers' Union and of other unions, marching through the centre of Glasgow. Glasgow Green is a traditional place of assembly. They marched to Glasgow Green to be addressed by Alex Ferry or the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers; Jimmy Jack of the Scottish Trades Union Congress; a previous Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Central, wee Tommy Macmillan, who was a National Union of Railwaymen member; and myself.
I make the point that it is not just a matter of a few cars being parked on green grass. Glasgow Green belongs to the people. It is part of our tradition and history. It is critical that there is a Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Central who can take on that issue and fight to ensure that the matter is resolved. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West knows that very well.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Hon. Friend? I was born in Govan.

Mr. Sillars: I am sure that my hon. Friend has himself taken part in demonstrations at Glasgow Green. However, we all understand that my hon. Friend has problems intervening.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: My hon. Friend clearly describes the concern of the electors of Glasgow, Central about their environment. Perhaps he will explain to English Members


—although there are very few in the Chamber—that Glasgow is known as the "dear, green place." That being so, that historical part of Glasgow's environment will surely play a great part in any election campaign. As my hon. Friend rightly says, Glasgow people care deeply about the history of Glagow Green which is very much part of the city's folk culture as well as of the environment. That "dear, green place" must remain an asset, despite the city's industrial development. Glasgow's environment must be well to the fore in the minds of the electorate of Glasgow, Central.

Mr. Sillars: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It would do English Conservative Members who come up to Scotland canvassing, such as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), the world of good to come up against our working-class cultures and traditions. Glasgow is a great city which has produced many great people.
Sunday shopping is an important local issue. Glasgow, Central constituency contains many small shops which are owned and operated by the Pakistani community which makes a significant contribution to the area. The Glasgow Herald on Friday 28 April claimed that Sunday shopping is eroding family life. That is some claim. The article went on:
Sunday trading in Scotland is on the increase, leading to further erosion of family life, the exploitation of shopworkers and increased pressure on small traders, it was claimed yesterday. The criticisms of Sabbath shopping expeditions came at a news conference in Glasgow yesterday called the `Keep Sunday Special Campaign, Scotland' to launch a booklet which claims that more than two thirds of Scots see no need for the shops to open on Sunday other than what we have at the present time.
That is quite an important issue because Glasgow, Central contains all the large stores and the St. Enoch's development, which I have mentioned, and Sunday trading would transform the lives of citizens in Glasgow, Central. Many people in that constituency live near the major shopping centres, so from Monday to Saturday life can be pretty rough in that there are many people and many cars and much hassle is attached to living there, so Sunday is a very relaxing day when people can enjoy the beauty of the city. If Sunday became like any other weekday it would have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of the electorate in Glasgow, Central.
A further issue requires the attention of a Member of Parliament. Robert Maxwell's paper, The Glaswegian, the paper for the people of Greater Glasgow, for the week ending Saturday 22 April 1989, stated:
Gas Under Glasgow. Oilmen set to sink wells. Exclusive story.
That possibility has implications for Glasgow's economy and the folk in Glasgow, Central. I shall read out just a wee bit, not the whole story, unless the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would like me to read it all. The article states that an international oil company is to spend more than £1 million drilling for natural gas 1,000 metres under the streets of Glasgow. London-based Marinex Petroleum will sink a well near Bargeddie in the city's east end later this year. But this week a top engineer with the company said that the gas pocket they hoped to find ran under the city centre. That is a major issue, if it is true.
In the centre of Glasgow, in the middle of the constituency, there is some of the most beautiful architecture and architectural layout one could imagine. I am not boasting simply because I represent part of the city of Glasgow. Everyone in Scotland is very proud of our architectural heritage. George square, the city buildings and the City Chambers are among the most beautiful buildings that anyone can imagine. Glasgow is full of classical buildings, and people are talking about gas underneath the city. Do they want to put gas belts in George square and Clyde street? The possibility has to be examined extremely closely and very carefully. It would be vandalism.
In addition, a new prestige building is being built in Glasgow, Central. We need an early writ and an early by-election because Glasgow district council is building a new concert hall. I shall tell the House a wee story that is relevant to why the writ should be moved. Glasgow district council is very proud of the fact that Glasgow is to be the European city of culture in 1990, but what if the city of culture of Europe in 1990 did not have a major concert hall? That could be an enormous problem. How could the city of culture lack such prestige? I pay respect to the Labour group which controls the city. It met and decided that Glasgow could not be the European city of culture unless it had a modern concert hall. It is being constructed just north of Queen street station. What will happen if in the middle of building the concert hall someone discovers gas underneath it? There will be an argument about the mineral rights. Such matters require the attention of a Member of Parliament who can raise them with the Scottish Office Ministers and try to resolve the major economic benefits, if they exist, without damaging the cultural centre of our city. That is why we badly need a by-election.
I have mentioned Scottish housing. Scottish Homes has been operating since 1 April, so no one really knows the score. I have mentioned housing associations, but one of the great problems of the new housing legislation is that housing associations receive smaller grants, as a means of attracting private money into housing, and that will affect rents. The private sector also creates major problems as 20,000 houses are below tolerable standards.
Another city-wide matter is of important local concern. One of the reasons why I wish to persuade the House to accept the writ and have an early by-election which would bring focus to bear on Glasgow, Central ouside the European arena is Mayfest. It is not so much a local issue as a local delight. It is city-wide, but the central part of Glasgow in which the constituency lies plays a major part in providing the necessary facilities for that cultural feast in Glasgow. I should like to persuade hon. Members of the need to focus on Glasgow because the by-election will attract many visiting journalists, not only those from south of the border who come up occasionally to find out what the natives are doing, but a much wider media because of what happened in Govan and elsewhere. People will come from France and Germany. Only this morning I received a telephone call from Finland where people are interested in what is happening politically in Scotland.
Irrespective of political differences, we are trying to raise the international prestige of Glasgow and make it internationally attractive so that people will come to live there and invest there, so that we can build up the social and economic infrastructure and create manufacturing and new service industries. There will be important


economic benefits for the community of central Glasgow if there is wider knowledge of the city's regeneration, its new vitality and the incredible pride running through the city. I should like Glasgow to attract people from abroad as well as those from south of the border so that they can talk to ordinary Glaswegians in Glasgow, Central, where taxi drivers say how proud they are of the city and ordinary men and women, despite their housing problems, say that the city is on the move and how proud they are of it. If we bring those folk to Glasgow we can dispel the old myths about the city, and about our quality and worth that still pertain in some parts of the world.
I shall give hon. Members an example of what the Mayfest involves. The Glaswegian said of the Mayfest:
This is what it is all about. It just keeps growing. The spectacular Glasgow Mayfest begins again next week and it is brighter, bigger and more vibrant than before. The festival started six years ago when a group of trade union officials, Wildcat theatre members and members of Equity decided to extend the traditional May Day celebrations. This year is the biggest Mayfest ever. There is sponsorship of over £700,000, with money coming from district and regional councils, the Scottish Arts Councils, the visiting arts organisations and Scottish and Newcastle brewers.
We are pleased that Scottish and Newcastle Breweries was saved from a take-over by Elders.
The article continues:
More than 200,000 people are expected to attend over 100 venues to see more than 200 companies or individuals. Glasgow can only reap the financial benefits. Hotels, bars and shops will be flooded with tourists from other cities and other countries, all anxious to spend their money in Glasgow. Jackie Westbrook, organiser of the event summed it all up. 'The people of Glasgow take Mayfest to their hearts and treat it with wonderful affection.' That may sound over the top, but it is true and it is great.
We would like people to see "Borderlines, Glasvegas". It writer, Morag Fullerton, said:
It captures the humour, spirit and character of Glasgow.
We want to attract people to Glasgow so that they can see the quality, spirit and character of Glaswegians. Once the visiting media people have attended their press conferences and made their reports they will want to go to the pubs, clubs and bars. A number of arty-crafty people will want to go—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For some time, the hon. Gentleman has been talking about Glasgow as a whole. I want to hear more about the writ for Glasgow, Central by-election.

Mr. Sillars: That is true. It is my fault, because I have not explained clearly that Glasgow, Central is at the heart of the Mayfest.
I have an article that says:
You will not get more Glaswegians shown "Borderlines, Glasvegas". They take the song 'Looking for Linda' and rename it 'Searching for senga.'
That sums up the irreverent Glaswegian attitude to life, which makes Glasgow and its people extremely attractive.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: My hon. Friend is considering in detail the constituency's problems and why it is important to have an early by-election. He has mentioned ecology, housing and other important topics that the electors will want to discuss in detail, but amazingly, he has not mentioned a subject that is of interest to the electors. He must surely recognise that football is important to the electors of Glasgow, Central, given the success of our national team. I am sure that the electors will want to discuss the team's future prospects against Norway and

Yugoslavia. As the Government are about to introduce identity cards in England and, we hope, not in Scotland, I am sure that this will be a hot issue on the doorsteps of Glasgow, Central. Is there a football club—I suspect that there is—within the constituency? I am sure that football spectators, who are also electors, regard football as an issue important to a by-election.

Mr. Sillars: The national stadium of Hampden park lies just outside the constituency's boundaries. That will be of relief to the Chair, never mind anyone else. There is no doubt that many people in Glasgow, Central are fanatical football supporters, like most Scottish people. We shall he queueing up to see our team qualify, for the fifth time running, for the World Cup in Italy. It would be wrong for me to try to shift Hampden park over the constituency boundary line just for the sake of argument.
National issues will be as important as local issues in the by-election. Rarely can electors in one constituency have had so many crucial national issues to consider. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were not in the Chair at the time, but I reminded Mr. Speaker that earlier this year he pointed out that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and added, long may it remain so. Whatever the political differences we may have, I accept that this is the system.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Although I was not in the Chair at the time, I was listening, so there is no need for the hon. Gentleman to repeat that argument.

Mr. Sillars: I was not about to repeat that argument, but I am happy that I do not need to elaborate on it. I am especially pleased that it registered first time, given the confusion that I have caused once or twice.
The views of the electors are vital and must be known as soon as possible. Once I have set out the issues—I do not intend this arrogantly—I will have convinced even the most sceptical Tory Member that the writ should be moved and that we should have an early by-election.
It is not for me to comment on Government policy, but it is bound to play a large part in the by-election. The Budget, which unfortunately I was unable to hear for a variety of reasons, will be a big issue. On the day after the Budget, The Times—not the Evening Times; hon. Members from Glasgow tend to talk of the Evening Times as The Times—said:
Battle against inflation fuels hope of future tax cuts. Cautious but clever Lawson 
It will be interesting to see whether that is the judgment of the people of Glasgow, Central.
People who think that it was a cautious but clever Budget should have an early opportunity to test opinion in Scotland. As the National Health Service is the main issue in the Vale of Glamorgan by-election, perhaps opinion on the Budget will not be tested. I should not be surprised to see Ministers on television tomorrow night or on Friday morning explaining that it was a one-issue campaign and that folk did not understand. If that is so, the Government should allow the people of Glasgow, Central the opportunity of a major debate on the Budget, which is central to our economic policy.
A very good letter appeared in the Financial Times from a member of the Labour party. Leaving aside the training figures and the weakness of manufacturing industry, many people are concerned about manufacturing and believe that we cannot take in each other's washing. This Labour Member should be let loose on the streets of Glasgow so


that he can have debates with Tory Members. I tell the Leader of the House that this campaign will be fought on the streets. We expect debates to be held not only in halls but on street corners. The people can argue with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the weakness or strength of our manufacturing industry.
Like everyone else, a number of folk in Glasgow, Central have borrowed. I have heard them described as yuppies in the Merchant city—I object to that. I am a resident of the Merchant city and am not a yuppie, certainly not at 51. My neighbours across the landing from me are not yuppies either; they are ordinary folk who have bought flats using a mortgage. On 9 March, The Times —the London Times—stated:
Mr. Robin Leigh-Pemberton, Governor of the Bank of England, has warned that the number of personal borrowers defaulting on their debts is likely to rise this year as higher interest rates take their toll … The Governor said that between 1976 and 1978, personal borrowing had risen sevenfold, while the ratio of debt to personal income had grown from 50 per cent to more than 100 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West is a trained economist. I look forward to slipping into the back of the halls to listen to him deal with the monetarist aspects of this policy. We are told that borrowing has risen sevenfold during those years under a monetarist Government.
Central to the political debate in the British political system is the question whether a monetarist policy operates—where did it begin, does it still operate, has it stopped and, if so, what operates in its place? Those are major issues which will excite a number of Conservative Members, those ideologues, six of whom the Leader of the House put on the Committee dealing with the so-called Self-Governing (Scotland) Bill.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It is the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill. Unfortunately, it is not the Self-Governing (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Sillars: That day will come.
We want those folk to go before and be interrogated by the electors of Glasgow, Central. I hope that the English Tory Members who come up to Glasgow on their charter planes make no mistake: they should not think the folk in the constituency do not know about monetary policy. When Tory Members enter the city of Glasgow, particularly Glasgow, Central, they will meet a well-educated political electorate. In some respects, I am sorry for Conservative Members, because they will be subjected at their public meetings to severe interrogation at a theoretical level on monetarism, added value and the mode and means of production.
This will be an interesting election for the Government. One of the benefits of holding an early election and focusing on this issue separately from the European elections will be that it will educate the Government, who think that they are the only ideologues. There are a fair number of ideologues in Glasgow, Central. I have heard them at my public meetings, and they subject people to telling scrutiny.
Property is another item of the national economy that is relevant to the issue of the writ. About 35 per cent. of 'people in Glasgow, Central are owner-occupiers. The Daily Telegraph is a Tory newspaper and, although it does

not sell much in that constituency, one of the things that I like about it is that it distinguishes between its news coverage and its editorial policy. It is one of those newspapers that most politicians use as a resource. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West want to intervene? No? We all understand his difficulty.
On 14 March this year, The Daily Telegraph, under the headline
Property seen as safe refuge",
stated:
Nothing the Chancellor of the Exchequer does or says today is likely to divert the big money from property, believes Bob Bowden, Conrad Ritblat's investment partner.
The article quoted Mr. Bowden as saying:
It may be premature to talk of a return to the situation in the late 70s when the average institutional holding in property was as high as 19 per cent. but already, after a spell in the doldrums—down to 8 per cent. in 1986—the percentage is edging into double figures.
It does not take too much imagination to visualise a scenario where the funds will take refuge in property for anything up to 15–18 per cent. of their investment cash reserves.
Certainly, they are still good buying opportunities, particularly in the strong market sectors such as offices and industrial. Strong rental and capital growth is under-pinned by demand and there is currently a high level of investment cash from overseas to bolster this sector.
That pressure on industrial and commercial property is bound to have an effect on property overall, but in Glasgow, Central, commercial and industrial property forms a big part of the capital. That issue will be important.
The other day, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made a remarkable speech.

Mr. George Howarth: He always does.

Mr. Sillars: Yes, he is very good: there is no question about that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was reported on 2 May in the Glasgow Herald. This is an important reason for ensuring that the focus on Glasgow, Central is separate from the European election. The Glasgow Herald stated:
Smith scorns the locust years".
The article continued:
Shadow Chancellor Mr. John Smith yesterday described the 1980s as the locust years as he delivered a withering attack on the Government's economic performance.
We can imagine that happening in the halls in the middle of Glasgow, Central.
The article continued:
He told a media rally at the Barbican in London, 'The seed corn has been squandered by Mrs. Thatcher in her spend now, pay later society.' It was one of Labour's most savage onslaughts so far on 'the 10 years of hype, with the economy in retreat and with even the Tory media merchants unable to persuade to the contrary'. Mr. Smith said, 'At the end of 10 years, Britain has the highest balance of payments deficit in our history, the highest inflation rate of the major countries in the European Community and the highest interest rates in the industrial world. Despite the huge bonus of North sea oil revenues, worth a total of £78 billion, we are in deep economic trouble.'
Of course, oil revenues will be one of the big issues in the Glasgow, Central by-election in relation to the national economy and Scotland. I am sure that members of the Scottish National party will be delighted to learn that, far from decrying their importance, a major figure in


the Labour party is inflating them to their proper position in the economic equation. It is important that that is known to the electors of Glasgow, Central.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: My hon. Friend will recall that today at Scottish Questions, reference was made to oil revenues. It is worth reminding the voters of Glasgow, Central and of all Scotland that the oil revenues have been worth £78 billion over the past decade and little benefit has been received in Scotland. It is time that that money was reinvested in various parts of Scotland, especially inner-city areas such as Glasgow, Central, where there is a desperate need for improvements in housing, health, education and many other aspects which my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Sillars: One of my great problems this afternoon is that I cannot be partisan. Because I am moving the writ within the boundaries set by "Erskine May", Standing Orders and the traditions of the House, I cannot say what I would like to say about the oil revenues that have flowed through our economy.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) say just now that he was moving the writ for the Glasgow, Central by-election. He has said that repeatedly during the past couple of hours. I think that this is an appropriate point for me to direct your attention to a piece of paper that has been circulating throughout the Palace, which is directly relevant to this debate and to you. It comes from the "Scottish National Party Parliamentary Group" and is headed
Sillars' Filibuster Against Schools Bill Guillotine".
It says:
SNP Vice-President Mr. Jim Sillars, MP for Govan, explained that his filibuster in the House of Commons this afternoon … was intended as a procedural device to slow up the Government guillotine on the Schools' opting-out Bill
and that it was not his intention to move the writ.
Those of us who have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying have found it difficult to distinguish his argument for the early moving of the writ. Our confusion and concern are the greater because the press release says:
Mr. Sillars said that he chose this device, not because he intended to move the writ for Glasgow, Central By-Election but 'to demonstrate how Scottish Opposition MPs can harass the Tories and attack Thatcher's legislative plans'.
The hon. Gentleman has just told you, Mr. Speaker, something that is simply out of line with the document that has been circulated to the press, which suggests that journalists "contact Jim Sillars" on extension 5022.
The hon. Gentleman has taken some time in telling the House that he is moving the writ for the by-election, but it seems that he is not moving it. He has told the outside world that he is not arguing about the principle of the timing of the Glasgow, Central by-election or the manipulation by the parties of by-election dates, of which he made great play earlier. This is quite simply a sordid attempt to get into the headlines tomorrow and to try to postpone the guillotine motion to be debated tonight, not into the indefinite future, but until 10 o'clock. That means that the motion will be debated between the hours of 10 o'clock tonight and 1 o'clock tomorrow morning and that the vote on this disgraceful measure will be moved from a time at which the Bill would have appeared in all its sordid glory to a time in the middle of the night, when it will be hidden from the large majority of the Scottish population.
Under Standing Order No. 41, it is within your power, Mr. Speaker, to rule out of order
a Member … who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own argument or of the arguments used by other Members".
On the basis of the evidence in black and white that I have produced, I contend that the hon. Member for Govan is involved in an exercise that has nothing to do with what he has claimed and that he should be ruled out of order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to ask the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) a straight question. Is it true that he does not intend to move the motion?

Mr. Sillars: That will depend upon the debate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is a long-established principle in the House that hon. Members who speak to a motion must intend to move it.

Mr. Sillars: I have moved the writ, Mr. Speaker; I began my remarks with the words "I beg to move".
Before continuing with my substantive argument, let me point out that I can be judged in the House only on the basis of what I say in the House. It is a dangerous course for an hon. Member on either side of the House to interject something from outside.
As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, I have not wandered out of order one iota since I started my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: That was true while I was in the Chair earlier, and I understand from Mr. Deputy Speaker, who has also been in the Chair, that the hon. Member has been in order. But it is a different matter now that I have seen a press release which alleges that this is a filibuster. That puts a different complexion on the matter, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman again, now that he claims that he has moved the motion, whether he intends to persist with it.

Mr. Sillars: Well, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Answer the straight question.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman must give me the opportunity to answer as I wish.
If I were filibustering in the technical parliamentary sense of the word, you, Mr. Speaker, could rule me out of order, but we all know that the term "filibuster" has a wide meaning outside the House. Everyone knows full well that in this place technical issues are resolved in a technical manner and that technical language is used of them. "Filibuster" is one. Technically, I have not filibustered for one minute, although the man outside probably thinks that I have. In broad colloquial language—[HON. MEMBERS: "The press release?"] But there is a difference. I know that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) wants to collude with the Tory party to get the guillotine motion through; it would not be the first time that a Labour Front Bench spokesman had colluded with the Tories. On the technical issue, however, and according to the language used in this place, Mr. Speaker, I cannot be faulted, and you know that.

Mr. Speaker: If the press release is a genuine press release put out by the hon. Gentleman, it puts a very different complexion on what he seeks to do in relation to the abuse of our procedures.

Mr. Bermingham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I understand the argument correctly, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has said, in answer to your question, that this is not a filibuster. I asked him to give a straight answer to your question, which he failed to do. He was not prepared to admit that he was not responsible for the last paragraph of the press release, which says clearly that he does not propose to move the writ.
It must be an abuse of the process of the House for an hon. Member to say one thing in the House having already said something utterly different outside—in advance, and in a press release that carries his telephone number.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should answer two straight questions: first, is he responsible for the press release; secondly, is he responsible for its last paragraph? If he is responsible for both, this must surely be an abuse of our procedures.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for Govan answer those two questions?

Mr. Sillars: Could you repeat them, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman responsible for the last paragraph of the press release and is he responsible for issuing the press release?

Mr. Sillars: Of course I take responsibility for it. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] There is no way that I would shed responsibility on to someone else.
We are in the process of debating the writ. If you, Mr. Speaker, cast your mind back to the Richmond, Yorks by-election writ, you will recall what the hon. Member for Bolsover said. We all know what the objective was during the moving of the writ that Friday. [Hon. Members: "Do we?"] Yes, and we all read about it in the press three or four days before it happened.

Mr. Brian Sedgemoore: He put on a better act than you.

Mr. Sillars: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am now being told that an act—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman well knows that in moving this motion, it must be his intention to persist with it. I am concerned that he said in the press release for which he says he takes responsibility that he does not intend to move the writ for the Glasgow, Central by-election. I must now ask him the question directly: does he so intend?

Mr. Sillars: Yes, Sir. I have moved it, but whether it goes to a vote is a different matter—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that on the second occasion on which the Richmond, Yorks writ was moved, a certain procedural device was used—that the Question be, "That the Question be not now put". I am sure that I do not need to point this out to you, Mr. Speaker. The question whether the matter goes to a vote does not lie entirely in my hands. You know that as well as anyone. If you are asking me whether I am moving the writ, the answer is yes, I am moving the writ.

Mr. Speaker: In that case the hon. Gentleman may proceed, but he must proceed absolutely in order.

Mr. Sillars: May I ask whether you are suggesting that I have not been in order?

Mr. Speaker: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that he has been in order. I am saying that now that I have this press release in my hand I am bound to take a slightly different view of what he has been saying.

Mr. Sillars: I find that difficult to follow in logic. If I have been in order, there can be no complaint about my performance in the House, irrespective of what is or is not said outside. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not my first visitation to this place. As I said earlier, I was brought up in the Bob Mellish Whips Office. I know what goes on behind the Chair. You are not talking to somebody who is naive. [Interruption.] One of the most remarkable events of the past two seconds has been the "Oohs" and "Aahs" from adult people pretending that what goes on behind the Chair and through the usual channels is Boy Scout stuff.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What matters now is what goes on between the hon. Gentleman and the Chair.

Mr. Sillars: Point taken, Mr. Speaker.
I now refer to another aspect of national policy.

Mr. Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman wants to speak again and collude with the Tories.

Mr. Robertson: I am sure that you will resent that remark as much as I do, Mr. Speaker. The House of Commons should be protected from a group of people. The press release is in the name of a group of people and is a deceit either to the press or to the House. The hon. Gentleman has produced a press release in his own name, in his own words and with quotation marks. It clearly states:
Sillars' filibuster against schools Bill guillotine.
Standing Order No. 42 provides that the Chair should protect the House against irrelevance. I agree that that is a fine point, but the hon. Gentleman has issued a press release and told the press that this is a filibuster and is intended as a procedural device to delay the Government's guillotine on the schools opting-out Bill. He knew that the procedures of the House could not delay the Bill beyond 10 o'clock tonight. He went on to say that he chose that device not because he intended to move the writ for the Glasgow, Central by-election. Clearly he is in breach of Standing Order No. 42, because what he says is irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) knows that there are precedents for what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is doing. He has already told me that he intends to move the motion, and he must proceed in order.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you had had at the inception of the debate the information which you have in your hand, would you have called the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)?

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. I did not have it in my hand earlier, but I have it now.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was less a point of order than a point of debate. My hon. Friend has moved the writ. Everything that he has said so far is relevant. Surely that is what we should be concerned about.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is the judge of whether a point of order is legitimate. In the light of what has been handed to me, it was a perfectly legitimate point of order to raise with me. The hon. Member for Govan must now remain absolutely in order and continue to move the writ for the Glasgow, Central by-election.

Mr. Sillars: There is no problem, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, national issues demand that we enable the electors of Glasgow, Central at an early stage to decide what sort of Member of Parliament they want to represent their views in the House.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am having great difficulty in hearing my hon. Friend because of the noise which is being made by hon. Members who have been present for only about two minutes.

Mr. Speaker: It is up to the hon. Member for Govan to obtain the ear of the House. He must keep in order.

Mr. Sillars: Fine, Mr. Speaker. You and I both know that I am not doing anything which other folk have not done before.
One of the big issues that requires an early election is the electricity sell-off in Scotland. One of the strange reports in The Independent of 27 April is headed:
Few prepared to buy shares in electricity
It states:
Most people are not interested in investing in the privatised electricity industry but 50 per cent. are willing to pay for a cleaner environment, according to a Gallup poll.
Given that that is a fact, there is a major persuasion job to be done on the electors of Glasgow, Central by the Conservative Government. If half the folk do not want the electricity privatisation measure, it is important that the Government put it to an early electoral test in Glasgow, Central and come to some conclusions based upon the ballot box. A major part of the Conservative party's election manifesto for the Glasgow, Central by-election will be devoted to the privatisation of electricity. It is a wonderful chance for ideologues in the Conservative party to go north again, charter a craft and land at the airport, and knock on the doors to persuade people to buy shares in privatised electricity. It will be important for them to listen to the response of ordinary folk in Glasgow, Central. That is one of the major national issues that demand an early by-election.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Why is it that members of the Scottish National party refused to sit on the Standing Committee and did not oppose the Electricity Bill as other Opposition parties did?

Mr. Sillars: I am in the same difficulty with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) as I was with one of my hon. Friends who invited me to give partisan political opinions, Mr. Speaker, which you and I both know would put me out of order and subject me to another intervention from the hon. Member for Hamilton. It illustrates a point. Such an issue should be debated at an early stage. I expect the hon. Gentleman to be on a plane —it will be different from the other one—to Glasgow, Central to ask our candidate that very question.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. Member. This is a debate. I hope that he will bear in mind that other hon.

Members wish to participate in it. He has been speaking for a very long time. He must have regard to the wishes of other hon. Members to participate. Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Sillars: One thing you must admit about me, Mr. Speaker, is that I do not take up a lot of time in the House. I do not apologise for that. If I explain it to you, I will be out of order. Of course I understand the position. You and I know that you know that I know that you know the position. We all know the position. There is no problem attached to that.
Another reason why it is absolutely critical to have an early test of opinion on a national issue is the National Health Service. I will not go out of order by quoting and naming all the hospitals in Glasgow, Central. There are many of them. The National Health Service will figure prominently in the Glasgow, Central by-election, and so it should.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will be a day-to-day visitor, but the folk in Glasgow, Central want to see his big brother, the Secretary of State for Health. As you have said, Mr. Speaker, this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Scottish doctors have been equally scandalised by the jibe about being concerned only about their wallets. It is important that at an early stage, while the Government are formulating legislation arising out of discussions and consultation about the White Paper, they test opinion in Scotland. At the moment, no Member of this Parliament has been able to elicit from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for health matters in Scotland whether there will be separate legislation for Scotland on the National Health Service, although there has always been separate legislation before.

Mr. Speaker: I think that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is not entirely relevant to whether the writ should be moved now.

Mr. Sillars: The point is that, if the writ is moved now and there is an early election, there is no doubt that, at meeting after meeting that the Under-Secretary attends with experts in the Health Service—nurses, doctors and ancillary workers—he will be asked time after time the important question whether Scotland will have separate legislation, since it affects people throughout the area. That is why it is important to have an early election so that the hon. Gentleman can subject himself and his ideas to the people in the constituency.
I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair yesterday to hear the debate—[Interruption.] No, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) is wrong; I was here yesterday. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I must ask for your protection; I am being subjected to harassment. I do not normally mind, but I cannot keep in order and answer all these sedentary interventions as well.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will get my protection; but the House should also have its protection.

Mr. Sillars: I hope that the folk in Scotland will have protection, that is what my speech is partly about. One reason why there must be an early by-election is the constitutional crisis that is now part and parcel of the political system inside Scotland, and, I am told, in England and Wales as well.
Before I deal with that, I will turn to another important issue—the green issue. I hope to persuade you, Mr.


Speaker, that this matter is highly relevant; people should have an early opportunity to decide in an election green issues. A headline in The Times of 8 March this year reads:
Thatcher attack on rain forests.
The headline is misleading. When I first read it, I thought the Prime Minister had picked up her axe, said "now look here" to the trees, and then attacked them. However, that is not the case. The article states:
Mrs. Thatcher moved from the closing of the successful Saving the Ozone Layer conference in London yesterday to address the much broader question of global climate change, and in particular the part played in that change by the destruction of Brazil's tropical rain forests.
There are comments about this matter attributed by the local press to the people in Glasgow, Central. They were asked about the so-called scientific report that the greenhouse effect would raise the level of the oceans, which would inundate parts of the world, including the United Kingdom. The island of Great Britain, including Glasgow, was to be affected and Glasgow, Central, it was said, would probably disappear. That shows the importance of the green issues in politics at the moment. That matter should be divorced from the occasion of 15 June when the European elections are held in an arena of their own.
The Prime Minister's new policy must be subjected to a very early test by the people of Scotland. A whole range of other issues are related to the green issue. There are fall-outs between Ministers. The Prince of Wales has his own point of view on the environment. I live in Glasgow and am an elector in Glasgow, Central, and I listen to what folk in the area say. They were interested in what the Prince of Wales said about the environment when he addressed a major conference on the matter. Of course, there is no way in which the Prince of Wales can become involved in the by-election for Glasgow, Central. I mention this matter only to show how the folk of Glasgow, Central are tuned in to the green issues. They have picked up the fact that the heir to the throne is deeply involved in and concerned about those matters.
The Prime Minister is now a grandmother, and the folk in Glasgow, Central would like the opportunity of congratulating her and of asking her questions about environmental effects on their grandchildren as well as her grandchildren. That is another reason for moving the writ and giving the people of Glasgow, Central the opportunity to question the Leader of the House on the Government's new green tinge to the Tory blue. I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding. I think I have carried him on this question. Perhaps I can carry him with me on the question of moving the writ. I have carried him part of the way, but at the end of the day it is not up to me whether the writ is voted on; that rests with the House.
Other environmental issues are important. I wish to refer to a report in a Scottish newspaper that is relevant to the people in Glasgow, Central. The following headline appeared in the Scotland section of The Sunday Times on 12 March this year:
UK dustbin fear as waste crisis looms.
I hope that the Leader of the House is listening, because one of the bones of contention between Members of my party and Government Members has been the failure to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. That matter even now is being debated as part of the political process in the Glasgow, Central by-election. The motion that the

Leader of the House tabled said that other Select Committees would consider Scottish affairs. The Sunday Times report states:
Scotland could become a dumping ground for the whole of Britain if tough new safeguards and waste disposal proposals for England and Wales are not adopted here.
Long may it be that wherever one lives in the United Kingdom the same laws apply. The article continues:
Pollution controls north of the border have been described as a shambles and the problem has been made worse by the closure of Scotland's largest waste tip near Coatbridge in Lanarkshire which handles 300,000 tonnes of waste a year.
The report goes on to say that David Boyd, the industrial director of the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, warned that, unless the Government took immediate action, disaster was looming. A person called J. M. Bright wants the Scottish Office to adopt the recommendations included in the report on toxic waste published last Wednesday by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment chaired by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). The article states:
Rossi recommended far-reaching changes for England and Wales including a beefed-up inspectorate and a radical reorganisation of the system of dump licensing. 'It will be much, much tougher if our recommendations are adopted, and the Government seems to be taking our report very seriously', said Rossi.
The folk of Glasgow, Central, listening to the hon. Gentleman, would think that the Environment Committee should be looking after Scottish interests.
The article continues:
The report was severely critical of the Department of the Environment and the local authorities. No evidence was taken from Scotland. Rossi explained, 'Scotland is a foreign country as far as our recommendations are concerned. It is up to the Secretary of State what action he takes on the environment.'
The Government told the people of Scotland that there would be a Select Committee system and that, although they could not set up a Scottish Select Committee, they assured us that Scotland's interests would be looked after. However, one of the major Select Committees dealing with one of the major issues affecting our part of the country as much as anywhere else has said that it regards us as a foreign country.
Many academic institutions dealing with environmental problems are situated in Glasgow, Central. We have experts who know about the subject and who are electors there. They will want an early opportunity to cross-examine the Leader of the House. I hope that he will assure me that he will come up to Glasgow, Central because it is important that there is such an opportunity at an early date.
The poll tax is another important issue and, although I shall not go into its merits or otherwise, I advise the House that a major concern in Glasgow, Central is whether warrant sales will operate against poor people. It is important that that matter is examined carefully and closely in the arena of an election that matters and that people have an opportunity to make a decision that matters. There are basically three ways in which non-payment of the poll tax could be enforced. The first is wage arrestment, the second is bank arrestment and the third is warrant sales. I know what I am talking about because I have gone into this matter extensively in Glasgow, Central. As many people in that constituency do not have a wage or a bank account and perhaps own only


half of what is in their house, whether or not Strathclyde region will implement warrant sales has become a major issue.
I am happy to report that I have received a letter from Charlie Gray, the leader of the Strathclyde Regional Labour Group, with whom I am friendly enough personally, although we differ politically and we accept the cut and thrust as one must do. Although the letter is not the friendliest that I have ever received—

Mr. Speaker: What is the relevance of the letter to the hon. Gentleman to the by-election?

Mr. Siliars: I will tell you the relevance, Mr. Speaker. I wrote to Charlie Gray as a Member of Parliament for a Glasgow constituency, which has exactly the same problems as the Glasgow, Central constituency, which is next door. I am sure that the constituencies of other hon. Members have the same problems. The regional council is the levying authority, and it is the representations that we as Members of Parliament make to the regional council and the pressure that we bring to bear on it on behalf of the community that will determine whether people who do not pay the poll tax are chased up through bank arrestment, wage arrestment or warrant sales.
Another reason why the letter is relevant is that the Tories will want to contest what Charlie Gray has said. It is a bone of contention and bones of contention are what politics are all about. Charlie Gray wrote:
I am unable to reply on the specific question that you asked as my council has yet to discuss and decide the matter.
Nobody can deny that this will be a big issue and that because the council has not decided on the warrant sale issue, pressure will have to be brought to bear. The letter continues:
However, I would remind you that our proud record is that in our whole existence we have never carried out a warrant sale in a dwelling in which people were living.
That looks good, but the matter has yet to be clarified by a decision of the regional council. Perhaps it will be possible to take deputations to the regional council and to argue the case against warrant sales. Perhaps there will be a public statement and perhaps the Conservative Government will want to argue against the regional council taking that action. That is the relevance of this issue to the by-election in Glasgow, Central.
There is also a constitutional crisis. I said earlier that few by-elections raise the opportunity to address a range of major issues and I cannot think of any by-election except this which has had the opportunity to address a major constitutional crisis such as the one developing between the judiciary and the Executive in this country. We cannot under-estimate the importance of this issue, because acres of newsprint have been devoted to it. I am sure that your good self, Mr. Speaker, must have read about it extensively in The Times and The Daily Telegraph and elsewhere.
Judges in England and Wales have threatened what some people have described as a "one-day strike". Others have described it as a "one-day stoppage" or a "one-day meeting". That has relevance to the people of Glasgow, Central for the very reason that you, Mr. Speaker, mentioned. It is also relevant because part of the judicial system south of the border is part of the superior court system of the House of Lords. Although on criminal matters there can be no appeal from Scotland to the House of Lords, on civil matters the House of Lords is the final

court of appeal. In Scotland a case would go to the Outer House, and then to the Inner House, of the Court of Session, and the appeal is then to the House of Lords. Therefore, there is an organic link as well as simply a community interest in what happens in the constitutional crisis that is developing between the judicial system and the Executive.
Some people have said that the House of Lords might strike down Government legislation that has been passed by the House of Commons. That raises a multitude of important issues. The people of Glasgow, Central will be fortunate in being able to address that issue. How often in this country do we have a major debate at a by-election or even at a general election on constitutional matters such as the separation of the powers? We have an unwritten constitution and in such a country it is important for our democratic machinery that we have such debates. Glasgow, Central will probably become the national platform for that debate
The Government are fortunate with their Lord Chancellor of England. He is often called simply the Lord Chancellor, but he is actually the Lord Chancellor of England. He is a Scotsman. He was the Lord Advocate who became a Court of Session judge and then a House of Lords judge. He then joined the Government as their Lord Chancellor. He is Lord MacKay of Clashfern. He is in trouble on other matters that I cannot mention at present. Lord MacKay is likely to take part in the Glasgow, Central by-election, because I cannot imagine Lord MacKay, who wants to push through everything he can, not seizing the opportunity that will be offered by the platform of a by-election in Glasgow, Central if I persuade the House about the moving of the writ.
Although that is a major issue, I realise that I might have to persuade one or two folk of its importance. Some people might have been upset by the fact that the judges threatened to go on strike and to lock their minds away. In The Times of 7 March, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylehone, the former Lord Chancellor, predicted that the legal reforms proposed by the Government would lead to the creation of a Ministry of Justice. The Times reported:
He warned the conference that such a Ministry would see judicial independence go out of the window. The three Green Papers setting out the reforms had been cooked up without evidence and consultation.
Mr. Desmond Fennell, QC, the chairman of the Bar, is reported as saying:
Seeing justice as a consumer durable would undermine the integrity of the English justice system … the underlying approach of the proposals which supported competition and market forces was flawed.
Lord MacKay has also had his say. What a wonderful thing it will be to have the city hall of Glasgow at the centre of this great constitutional debate among the judiciary whose members are now all speaking out. I was taught in politics that judges do not say anything political. Like many other people, I am beginning to change my mind about that because major statements are now being made by judges.
This issue will also affect the small man and Glasgow, Central because the Scottish law reforms are also on their way. There are many solicitors' firms in Glasgow, Central. I know many of them and some are highly prestigious. There has been report after report on that. I have the press cuttings with me, but I shall not read them all because that


would be tedious, repetitious and out of order. However, I should like to quote the words of Lord William Rees-Mogg in The Independent:
The general tone of the debate was, however, carefully considered and tightly argued. Some newspapers have represented the lawyers' contribution as merely self-interest.
I believe that this issue should be widely debated in Glasgow, Central. We should consider whether the legal interests south of the border that are opposed to the Government's reform measures are acting out of self-interest alone, as was suggested by Lord Rees-Mogg. Despite your views about the United Kingdom, Mr. Speaker, you might think that the Scottish electors will have a stand-off attitude to law reforms south of the border. They might consider that it is much ado about nothing because, to be fair to them, the senators of the College of Justice in Edinburgh and the Court of Session have made no statements about the reforms. They have not suggested any outlandish action and no doubt they are operating as they usually do—privately, behind the scenes; in a sense, behind the Chair.
There is an organisation in Scotland, however, that is deeply concerned about the law reforms inside Scotland. I do not believe that anyone, even the hon. Member for Hamilton, would disagree that this matter deserves an early decision at the Glasgow, Central by-election. The electorate will have an opportunity to make a decision on the attitude taken by the Government, the Labour party, the Scottish National party and the Social and Liberal Democratic party as well as by representatives of the Scottish legal profession, especially solicitors.
What is of great interest and of relevance is that the leader of the Law Society of Scotland is Professor Ross Harper. The House may not be aware that Professor Ross Harper is also the president of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association. I cannot imagine for one moment that he would not want to seize the opportunity of getting on the platform during the by-election at Glasgow, Central. After all, that constituency is home to the High Court, the sheriff court and firm after firm of solicitors.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: My husband's firm is based there.

Mr. Sillars: That is another reason why it is impossible to believe that Professor Harper will not seize the opportunity afforded by the by-election.
Professor Harper has already issued major statements that demonstrate his passion and that of the Law Society of Scotland about law reforms in Scotland. He is the president of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association, but the headline of the Scottish Law Council report reads "We Must Be Independent". In that report of his speech he mentions independence 25 times and in one paragraph he mentions it four times. His comments are important as they set the background against which the debate in Glasgow, Central should take place. He said:
The independence of Scottish law and the distinctive Scottish legal system are important cornerstones of the preservation of a Scottish identity.
He goes on to talk about the independence of the profession and speaks of
exemption from external control, influence, pressure and support

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will take note of that, as it will be referred to in another context.
Professor Harper also said:
Independent solicitors give independent advice. That must be our watchword. Perhaps in a few years it will only be independent solicitors who will be available to give independent advice.
He went on to talk about the protection of the public, and I am sure that the House will agree that that issue warrants an early resolution at the Glasgow, Central by-election. About the argument that one does not need to be a solicitor to do conveyancing, he said:
While it is odd to answer a question with a question we could perhaps ask ourselves why should lawyers not practise brain surgery.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) might like to argue with Ross Harper about that. Both men are leading lights in Scottish politics and one can imagine them clashing in the city hall of Glasgow, Central. Ross Harper also quoted Adam Smith and went on to say:
Regulation is not for the protection of the interests of the profession, but for the protection of the interest of the public.
That is an important matter. He then discussed MDPs —multidisciplinary practices—a matter that the people of Glasgow, Central will want to resolve. That major issue, which affects the Scottish legal profession, can be resolved only by the political process; there is no other way.
I shall not quote any further from the report of the president of the Law Society of Scotland, but it is important to remember that the sheriff court is based in Glasgow, Central. Several members of the Law Society of Scotland have put forward what they have described as "thought-provoking suggestions" on the appointment of sheriffs, which include formal training and psychological assessment. Make no mistake, that will be an issue at the Glasgow, Central by-election. A lot of folk in that constituency know a lot about sheriffs and they have an opinion about whether they are properly trained and, more importantly, whether they should be subject to psychological assessment.
Even the "Doomsday scenario" is mentioned and is relevant to the by-election. You will not be familiar with that phraseology, Mr. Speaker, but it rings bells everywhere in Scotland.
The Lord Advocate and the Law Society of Scotland have fallen out on the question of who should become judges. I shall not go into that, but what the Lord Advocate has said is relevant to why the Scottish legal system should be part of the debate during the by-election campaign. He said:
In 1980 there were 394 High Court cases and in 1988 there were 889. It is projected that that will rise to 1,120 in 1991.
That demonstates how crime has risen in the past 10 years. There are two levels at which cases are heard in Scotland—either in the sheriff court or in the High Court. For a case to be heard in the High Court one has had to be involved in something guy bad. Our sheriffs have considerable powers, but beyond them lies the High Court. The random quotes I have given demonstrate that the question of legal reform, the constitutional crisis and the separation of powers are relevant and should be decided by the people of Glasgow, Central as soon as possible.
I have studied the newspapers down here and I know that the Government get upset with the Church of England about social issues. Scotland, therefore, is not unique, even


though a special Church and state debate is currently taking place. In Glasgow, Central there is a large churchgoing public of all denominations—the mosque is also found in that constituency.
The Church's view on how things should go was put clearly by the. Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I am sure that no one will mind me quoting the Moderator—I believe that you have met him, Mr. Speaker—as his remarks illustrate the difference of opinion between the Church and state about the values that govern our society north of the border. I am sure that every hon. Member who represents Scotland, including those on the Tory Benches—even the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—would agree that the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church's views on moral values as they affect political judgment and social policy are a red hot issue that should be put before the people of Glasgow, Central so that they can speak on behalf of the Scottish people.
An article in the Glasgow Herald, under the heading,
Moderator tells of the struggle for the soul of Scotland",
stated:
The Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland said they"—
the Scottish people—
are not prepared to make money their God, to regard greed as the only motive for economic activity or individualism as the highest form of human life. They stubbornly believe that we are responsible for one another and they are stubbornly loyal to the communities in which they live whether it is a mining village where the pit has been closed, a city"—
this demonstrates its relevance to Glasgow, Central—
struggling to maintain its services to help the poor, the frail and the handicapped or the struggling confused reality which is Scotland itself, a nation with a history and perhaps a future.
We should now perhaps thank God for the thrawnness of the Scottish soul.
That Scottish thrawnness and the stubborn determination of the right hon. Lady who leads the Government will be central features of the by-election. They were in Govan, and they will be in Glasgow, Central. That is why I quote the Moderator. I cannot think of anyone in recent times who has put the point so clearly and so eloquently.
Of course, there are European issues. Although I do not want the by-election to be involved in the affairs of 15 June, on the domestic side there are questions about the European monetary system and about economic monetary union which are for this Parliament to resolve. There are big divisions between the Government and the Opposition and between ourselves and various other people. Those are matters that should be debated. There is the question whether we should legislate in this House for social Europe. The Leader of the House will accept that that is a point of division in the House. That will be reflected in the debates in Glasgow, Central.
There is also the alleged corruption within the European Community. One of the saddest features of Scottish politics, which the Glasgow, Central by-election will remove for a while, is the absence from Scotland of the hon. Member for Southend, East, (Mr. Taylor). He will be back among us for the by-election. We have missed him. He used to sit for Glasgow, Cathcart. I say in all sincerity that it is sad that he is not involved in Scottish political life now. I miss the debates that I had with him, a sharp wee fellow, wee Teddy, as we knew him in the west of Scotland. He has got a bee in his bonnet, as we say, about corruption in the European Community and about how the Community operates.
I do not want to weary the House with that, but. I have no doubt that when the hon. Gentleman comes back—they are bound to send up people who know something about Scotland to act as guides for the "no turning back" English Tories who will be coming up—he will be in his element talking to the folk in various parts of the city. One of the great things about the hon. Gentleman is that he has always managed to talk to the people of Scotland in their own language. No toffee-nosed Tory snob is wee Teddy. I will not go on about it, but it will be one of the nicer features of the by-election when he is back home and we bump into each other in the street. I think that he is unhappy where he is. Even for a short time it will be like home for him. I might even persuade him to look for a seat north of the border next time. Perhaps I could persuade him to stand against me in Govan. However, I will be straying out of order if I go further into that.
Another important issue is universities. Strathclyde university lies right in the heart of Glasgow, Central constituency. It has a law facility and it is a technological university. Its principal is Sir Graham Hills. He is an issue in Glasgow, Central. Let me put it on the record that I have a lot of time for Sir Graham. Some of his ideas about reaching out technologically into the international community are right. Last year I found myself in south-east Asia only a week behind the principal. Strathclyde university has set up former graduate clubs all over the world. The university maintains close technical and commercial contact with them. Sir Graham Hills goes out and meets the clubs. That is good, because there is always the possibility of Scottish companies in Glasgow, Central getting work in south-east Asia and places like that.
Sir Graham has other points of view that are highly contentious in the constituency. His views on how universities should be funded veer to the side of the Government. I am being polite in saying that. I think hon. Members will agree that it is unusual that the opinions of a principal of a great university should be an issue in a by-election, but they will be. There are important issues such as student funding, student loans and morale inside the university.
I mentioned that the university has a law faculty. One great problem in universities is that law faculties are being starved of resources. That is happening not just in Scottish universities. The law faculty at Cambridge was complaining about that only last week. That issue should be debated in Glasgow, Central. If we do not put enough resources into the law faculty, it will not produce the legal minds necessary to take us into a more technical society governed by a framework of law.
Local government reform is another important matter. It may surprise some members of the Government to learn that in Ayrshire the Secretary of State for Defence has been in a cabal that is trying to break up Strathclyde region, reform it and create Ayrshire as a region on its own. Hon. Members may ask what that has to do with Glasgow, Central. Strathclyde region cannot be carved up without it having an effect upon the status of Glasgow district council, whose headquarters are right in the middle of George square. It will no doubt come out in the debate that, while the Labour group in Strathclyde is not happy about the Ayrshire initiative of the Secretary of State for Defence in his capacity as the local Member of Parliament, the Labour group on the city council is not unhappy about it because it would make it, as it were, a one-purpose local


government unit. It will be a big question whether the Government will be steered by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, now the Secretary of State for Defence, hanging on by 182 votes, who is very concerned to bring about reform of local government.
I make no apology for raising another matter that has arisen within the last 48 hours—the decision of the Scottish Rugby Union to sanction people going to South Africa. A constituency that has Nelson Mandela square right in its heart is bound to regard that as a major issue in the by-election.
We are very proud of Nelson Mandela square. We had to take on the Tories to have the name changed. We did it to embarrass the South African consul general in Mandela square and also to show solidarity with black people in South Africa. Now the Scottish Rugby Union is saying that it will be an individual matter whether people go to South Africa. It has said that it will see whether the Scottish squad would be available. It is facilitating contacts with South Africa and it will give players permission to go there. That will be a major issue in the by-election. I do not know whether you read The Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald, Mr. Speaker. I have found in debate with English Members that they do not read The Scotsman, the Glasgow Herald, the Daily Record, the Glasgow Evening Times—

Mr. Doug Henderson: I read the Glasgow Herald every Monday.

Mr. Sillars: One English Labour Member reads the Glasgow Herald every Monday. That is always something. If he reads Murray Ritchie on the back page, he will learn a great deal about Scottish politics and Scottish life.
The decision of the Scottish Rugby Union should be an important debating point in the Glasgow, Central by-election. With the exception of the Tory party, there will be great unanimity to bring pressure to bear upon the Scottish Rugby Union to reverse its scandalous decision.
I have talked of national issues, but there are others. The hon. Member for Hamilton earlier wanted to bring my remarks to a conclusion. He is one of the Opposition foreign affairs spokesmen. If we extract the Glasgow, Central by-election from 15 June and subject it to scrutiny on its own, we see that there is no way that Labour's defence policy will not be examined closely. I have known the hon. Gentleman since he was a student at Dundee. I know his point of view on nuclear disarmament. He is what is called a multilateralist. I can well understand the desire to slip it past the folk in Glasgow, Central. The Labour party managed to slip it past the folk in the Vale of Glamorgan. We are approaching the day when it must be open and should be looked at.
In Glasgow, Central, right in the heart of Clydeside, where we have lived with Polaris and are to be told to live with Trident, there are umpteen experts on the nuclear issue. There are organisations all over the place, located in Glasgow, Central, that send representatives to every meeting of the Labour party to ask where it stands. One of the questions would be, "Would you press the trigger?" It is not for me to say in this debate whether we should or should not, although I personally would not. That is the sort of question that will be raised and I can understand the Labour party wanting to slip it past us.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, read The Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald, you will know how important Scottish sovereignty was. The Scottish Constitutional Convention is sitting and there are differences of opinion on the issue. There are great debates taking place in Scotland about our constitutional future. It is an intriguing situation. That may be another reason why the hon. Member for Hamilton wanted to curtail the debate.
What we in Scotland call a fankle has developed and it must be unravelled. Sovereignty will be a big issue and we should have an early resolution of it. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know, the conventional view, which has never been wholly accepted in Scotland, is that Parliament is sovereign. Having read The Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald in recent weeks, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware that Labour Members of Parliament went to Edinburgh for the week of the convention and signed a solemn declaration that the Scottish people were sovereign.
The Scottish people cannot be sovereign if Parliament is sovereign. That is a contradiction in terms. Those Labour Members may well believe that that is the case, but does that represent the official Labour party policy? That issue should be debated in Glasgow, Central and that fankle should be examined.
The deputy leader of the Labour party has travelled the country attacking Charter '88, which calls for a written constitution and a Bill of Rights. The right hon. Gentleman has attacked them because he supports the sovereignty of Parliament. The quicker we get the deputy leader of the Labour party on to a platform in Glasgow, Central, along with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who leads the Labour party in Scotland, the quicker—subject to press conferences and interrogation—we will know whether Labour Members believe in the sovereignty of the Scottish people or of Parliament.
The dual mandate is discussed at Labour party conferences. One of the national newspapers says that honours are even. The dual mandate is even more intriguing than the hon. Member for Garscadden signing the declaration of sovereignty while the deputy leader of the Labour party attacks any idea other than the sovereignty of Parliament. An element in the Labour party is putting forward the idea of a dual mandate. At the next general election, or possibly at the by-election, the Labour party may ask for a dual mandate. It is important to resolve this matter.
I am an objective neutral, but the matter seems to be a contradiction in terms. Labour party members cannot say, "Send us down to Westminster where we are sovereign, but if somebody votes against us, we can be sovereign in our own country." I could be wrong, but these matters must be debated during the by-election campaign.
Glasgow is an area of long-time working-class activity and organisation. All Opposition Members know that, as do one or two Conservative Members. In Glasgow, we are particularly proud of Glasgow Green. I mentioned that earlier and shall not be tedious and repetitious. Glasgow Green is the meeting ground of many a great working class rally.
I understand why the hon. Member for Hamilton did not want this debate to continue or to debate secondary picketing at the Glasgow, Central by-election. However, it is important and I want it debated at the by-election. I suspect that some Conservative Members will want the


matter to be debated at the by-election. If we have a by-election at an early date, it will clear up the dubiety. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is the Front Bench Labour party spokesman on employment. I have two press cuttings, one from the Financial Times, which says:
Meacher call to restore union rights disowned.
I thought that he must be being disowned by the Government. However, it seems that he is being disowned by his own party at a senior, shadow Cabinet level. The fact that that appeared in the Financial Times is important because people in the business community read it.
Many trade unionists read the Glasgow Herald and many of them live in Glasgow, Central. The Glasgow Herald said:
Labour disowns Meacher views on secondary picketing.
We should note the difference between the two newspapers. In the Financial Times, it said merely that the hon. Gentleman was disowned, but there was much more accurate reporting in the Glasgow Herald, which said that Labour had disowned its own spokesman's views on secondary picketing. That will be an important issue.
There are many working-class people in Glasgow, Central, and they are well organised. They should have an early opportunity to ask the Labour candidate and the Labour party where they stand on secondary picketing. That is extremely important to the trade union movement because, due to the outlawing of secondary picketing, men have been defeated in strike after strike. I know the hon. Member for Hamilton well from his Right-wing trade union days, and I understand why he would not want that issue examined.
You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am probably coming near the end of my remarks, and I am grateful for your patience. I am glad that there was no private notice question for us to fall out about today.
I have already mentioned that we do not have a Select Committee on Scottish affairs, however, an alternative has been set up by Opposition Members. It is touring Scotland, taking evidence and examining crucial issues. The Glasgow, Central by-election offers the alternative committee an excellent opportunity to meet in Glasgow, Central to take evidence from major institutions such as the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and from Scottish doctors and nursing unions about their views on the Health Service. They could make a significant contribution to the political debate. If I could persuade them to engage in such activity, what a tragedy it would be if there was a by-election on 15 June, in the middle of the European election, and the focus was lost.
I want to talk about Prestwick and Glasgow airports. Some people might ask what Prestwick has to do with Glasgow. I am glad that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South is present, because he has a strong interest in this. There is an intriguing relationship between the futures of Prestwick and Glasgow airports, and Glasgow airport's relationship to the centre of Glasgow, to which the air of culture and the development of the city is extremely important. In recent weeks there have been major debates about this.
I shall not be partisan. I used to represent South Ayrshire, but I have not changed my views because I have shifted geographically. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South will be delighted to hear that. A decision was taken at the Court of Session in Edinburgh which seems to spell the death knell for Prestwick airport

—it only looked like that. There were legal problems attached to the decision because, I believe it was not a sound legal judgment. I mention that to illustrate the importance of another major issue which should be talked about and which can be talked about only if a by-election takes place.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has publicly expressed grave concern about the White Paper proposals on the future of Scottish broadcasting. One factor that will emerge in this by-election is the fact that the White Paper on broadcasting did not contain the word "Scotland". That will be a hard charge to answer. We want a Home Office Minister to go to Scotland to explain to the Scottish people why that happened. That is highly relevant to Glasgow, Central.
Scottish Television is our biggest independent television company. It employs a fair number of people and exerts a major influence on life in west central Scotland, including the life of the Glasgow, Central constituency. Many people are very loyal to that television channel. Issues to debate are whether one or more independent companies should operate in Scotland, and whether licences should be simply on a financial basis or whether quality and commitment to Scottish broadcasting should come first. Those important issues involve culture—Glasgow, Central sits at the centre of the city of culture—but they affect employment as well.
It would be remiss of me not to mention that the Prime Minister herself will be an issue in the by-election. Her 10 years in power are to be tested in Wales tomorrow, and there is also to be an important opportunity for them to be tested in Scotland. If I catch your eye during Prime Minister's Question Time, Mr. Speaker, I hope to persuade the right hon. Lady to come to Glasgow, Central for the by-election and to go through the streets and into areas of housing meeting people who endure torture from damp homes, unemployment and poverty. That, in my view, is a Prime Minister's role: the Prime Minister should not be afraid to come and meet the people who she says have never been better off.
One of the tragedies of the English Prime Ministers —I know that you do not see it in the same way, Mr. Speaker—is that they are locked into Downing street and develop the bunker mentality. They are surrounded by people who tell them what they want to hear rather than what they should know. Our Prime Minister takes photo opportunities using the back grounds that she prefers: if she wants to project the image of an up-and-coming United Kingdom, for instance, the background to the photo opportunity will be a new factory. I think that her role is to get out into the streets and meet the people who are profoundly and fundamentally affected by her policies.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Earlier my hon. Friend mentioned a subject dear to his heart, saying that he would return to it: he referred to the large Chinese population in Glasgow, Central. My wife taught at Garnethill primary school, which was attended by members of the Chinese community.
Although the ethnic minorities that my hon. Friend has mentioned, Pakistani, Indian and Chinese, are very much Glaswegians and have been welcomed into Glasgow—some of the best Chinese restaurants anywhere are to be found in Glasgow, Central—they also feel strongly about their origins and places of birth. Does my hon. Friend think that in the by-election campaign members of the Chinese community will raise the question of Hong


Kong's future? I know that my hon. Friend has an interest in that. To what extent does he believe that the population of Glasgow, Central will share his concern?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide of the by-election.

Mr. Sillars: I should like to persuade you differently, Mr. Speaker. In the House of Lords, Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said that the reason why the Government did not propose a right of abode to the citizens of Hong Kong was that
it did not believe that there was sufficient support in this country for wholesale changes to the law that would entail the prospect, albeit a theoretical one, of large-scale immigration from Hong Kong.
The key words are
did not believe that there was sufficient support in this country".
How do we know that that is the case unless we put it to the test?
I have a long-standing interest in Hong Kong: my son was born there, and I have many friends who are Hong Kong citizens. When I was working there last year I met a number of members of the democratic organisations there who are seeking certain rights before 1997. The Chinese community in Glasgow is raising the Hong Kong issue. It wants the Government to engage in a test of public support—and, of course, a by-election provides a perfect opportunity for people to state their position and to commit themselves.
It is entirely fair for a Chinese from Hong Kong with a vote and right of residence in Glasgow, Central to go along to each election and ask, "Would you support a change in the British Nationality Act?"
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East raised the matter; I had meant to deal with it, but my train of thought was upset by all the points of order. Islamic issues will also figure prominently because of the position of the mosque in Glasgow, Central.
All the issues that I have mentioned are reasons for the motion to be accepted, and for the by-election to take place at an early date. I hope that I have persuaded most hon. Members who have managed to attend this short debate. I am aware that other hon. Members want to take part: perhaps, like the hon. Member for Bolsover, they will be eloquent enough to persuade me that I am wrong, but at this moment I think that an early by-election would be a very good thing.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the Question be not now put.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will keep me in order and give me guidance.
This has been a rather strange day. We have witnessed something of a performance by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid one of my colleagues, who is also a noted exponent of the lengthy speech in the Chamber. All that I can say is that he has proved that he is not my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner): there was none of the lightness of touch, the wit and the ability to engage sympathy that can be the mark of my hon. Friend.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed if I say that the past three or four hours have provided us with a new definition of boredom. I fear, moreover, that it has been an essay in futility. A press release in the hon. Gentleman's name made it clear that this would be a filibuster, by stating that there was no intention actually to move the writ. While I accept that on occasion we all conduct exercises for the benefit of the press, I feel that this example has gone beyond the normal bounds—and the tragedy is that it will achieve absolutely nothing. We shall have to see how the day continues, but I suspect that the sum achievement of the hon. Gentleman's exercise will be a vote on the admittedly obnoxious Self-Governing Schools etc. Bill at around 1.30 am, rather than at 7 pm.

Mr. Sillars: Why should that be so? I have been in the House before, and the motion on that Bill would not have been passed with a different type of organised Labour Opposition. The hon. Gentleman and his team are not up to the game that is required.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. It is an opinion that he often expresses in Scotland, frequently in terms of personal abuse, which those of us in politics and many outside it find extremely offensive. But that is his problem.
I do not know exactly how the day will end, but it is clear that, for all his efforts, the best that the hon. Gentleman can achieve will be a vote some four or five hours later than it would otherwise have taken place. If that is his monument, it seems to me to be a very small monument indeed.
It is not for me to delay the House with a lengthy speech, particularly in view of what has gone before. However, I move this motion for a good reason, in defence of a very important principle—which I understand, if we are to take his speech at face value, the hon. Member for Govan does not accept.
It has long been the understanding in this House that the party which held the seat which has been vacated—in this case, very sadly, through the tragic and unexpected death of Bob McTaggart—should have control over moving the writ. I have chosen the terms of my motion on advice, because I understand that, if we voted to defeat the motion that the writ be moved, the unintended—at least, I hope unintended—consequence would be that no writ could be moved for a further six months. That would be wrong for democratic practice.
The manoeuvre today is risky. We are trying to avoid the consequence of no writ being moved for a further six months and at the same time to defend the principle that the party which held the seat should decide the date of the by-election.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware that this is a principle of some importance to all Opposition parties. It is perhaps arguable that it is particularly important for smaller Opposition parties. If we begin to undermine the principle, we may well be on the way to a situation in which the Government will dominate in that respect as well. Governments of the day, of whatever political persuasion, might start to set the dates for by-elections without consulting or heeding the views of the party which had been successful in that constituency at the previous election.
If there ever was a vacant Scottish National party seat —if something happened to remove one of the four hon. Members—they would be extremely irritated and angry if the Labour party or the Conservative party moved the writ and bulldozed it through using their big battalions in the Lobby. Sometimes a convention can irritate. Sometimes it is even hard to explain or defend conventions. However, in a Parliament in which the power of the Executive is enormous, given our political system, convention can be an important way of defending individual and small group interests. I have no doubt that moving the writ is one of those conventions. Apparently the hon. Member for Govan speaking for all his hon. Friends, is prepared to sacrifice that principle, and the Labour party regards that as very unfortunate. I hope that it will not be misinterpreted if I say that in making this stand we are trying to save the SNP from the logic of its own position.
It is important that the party which held the seat should have certain rights. It will want to consult local people. The hon. Member for Govan waxed eloquent about the importance of local consultation and of the local party and its role in these matters. I believe that that is important. The Labour party will want to consult its people in Glasgow, Central who helped to elect Bob McTaggart and who supported him until his very sad death. It is important that there should be a period of mourning and a period to collect and wind up the affairs of the late Member. I am not prepared to sacrifice that principle or those rights simply because that might be an advantageous way of making a rather pointless demonstration on the Floor of the House, which is presumably designed and calculated to get a few headlines in tomorrow's Scottish newspapers.
This manoeuvre will not work. We are all in the business of agitation and putting across a point of view, but it goes beyond the bounds of honesty to pretend that this kind of demonstration, carried out in this way, is fighting for Scotland or will divert or change the course of events in this House. We will change matters ultimately through the ballot box, by winning the argument on the basis of a rational case. I do not believe that we will achieve that in the way pursued by the hon. Member for Govan.
I protest against the futility, and perhaps, if I may say so, the conceit, of what has been practised here today. An important matter of principle is at stake and I believe that I carry my right hon. and hon. Friends with me in this respect. For these reasons, the motion moved by the hon. Member for Govan is insincere and hypocritical—I can state that in terms of his press release. It is inappropriate, wrong and damaging to the interests of the Opposition. I am not prepared to ask any of my right hon. and hon. Friends to take part in this conspiracy or to sacrifice the interests of opposition parties, of the House and of the democratic system simply to put a cheap and worthless point into print in tomorrow's papers. For that reason, I believe that the question should not be put.

Mr. George Robertson: We are discussing a very important issue. The debate began with a long exposition about the necessity for an early by-election. There is a vacancy in the constituency of Glasgow, Central and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) put forward what sounded like a highly principled argument for an early by-election. He told us that the principle involved the moving of the writ not being in the

gift of parties. He told us that this was a matter of some consequence to the representation of people in Glasgow, Central.
During the course of the debate, word came down from the Press Gallery and we began to realise that what we were listening to was what we suspected all along—that the hon. Member for Govan was filibustering. He was using a procedural device. He was using, perhaps even abusing, the procedures of the House to make a political point outside the House. The emptiness of the hon. Gentleman's principle became all too vivid.
The press release stated that this filibuster was intended to be a procedural device to slow up the Government's guillotine on the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill. That is what the outside world has been told, although the House has been told something entirely different.
We know, though, that this device will only delay the guillotine on that obnoxious and unwanted legislation until 10 o'clock this evening. Either the hon. Member for Govan and his party believed that they could go after 10 o'clock this evening and that that would somehow frustrate the Government's intention to bring forward the guillotine, or they did not know that the procedures would limit the debate to 10 o'clock. In that case, they have scored yet another own goal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has pinpointed the major issue. The decision on the moving of a writ for a by-election has, by custom and practice, as the hon. Member for Govan quite fairly pointed out, been moved by the party which had held that seat. Of course that procedure has its own imperfections. However, the hon. Member for Govan pretended to the House that he wanted to change it.
The parliamentary SNP has tried to deceive this House or the outside world, via the press. It has told the House that it is interested in a principle related to the timing of the by-election. However, it has told the press, and via the press whoever else is interested, that it is really interested in something completely different.
I remember a speech that I heard within a few months of first entering the House. On 9 November 1978, during the debate on the Loyal Address, the then hon. Member for South Ayrshire made one of the most effective attacks on the Scottish National party that I had heard for some time. That hon. Gentleman—now the hon. Member for Govan—said:
Throughout the last four years that SNP Members have sat in this House they have lacked cohesion and strategy and they are … hopeless tacticians.
Nothing changes. Eleven years later, the hon. Gentleman returns to the House with a set of tactics that would make that former Member for South Ayrshire weep, if he were to use his critical faculties.
What makes me more sorry than angry about this afternoon's display is that the hon. Member for Govan used a device, hidden and cloaked under the pretence of principle, that he knows is as important to his party as it is to others. It does not necessarily offer a one-party advantage. The hon. Member for Govan wheeled out a fair amount of the cynicism of the ages, but it is important, for reasonable, decent and human reasons, to maintain that convention. There is no better illustration of that than the case of Glasgow, Central.
When the hon. Member for Govan makes a cheap publicity point out of the circumstances surrounding the


by-election, he sinks to depths that we never really expected of him. Bob McTaggart died only a few weeks ago, aged 43—the same age as myself. He has a young family still living in the constituency. There is something indecent about an exercise that involves grabbing headlines in circumstances that will upset the bereaved.
A period should be allowed to elapse between the tragic death of a young Member of Parliament and the electorate being consulted about his successor. The electors of Glasgow, Central know that only too well. Their problems and complaints are currently being dealt with, with due dedication, by hon. Members representing the surrounding constituencies. There is something slightly seedy about the tactic that we have seen used this afternoon, in which the SNP Members suggest that they will, in all their wisdom, make a decision at an early date to issue the writ for a by-election and that we will go along, willy-nilly, with them.
Another question involved in any test of the electorate is local consultation as to the timing of a by-election. If Glasgow, Central had been held by one of the four SNP Members, or by any of the three that have been present in the Chamber during this afternoon's display, they would expect the same consideration to apply—and few right hon. and hon. Members would dissent from such an arrangement.
One of the worst iniquities arising from this afternoon's seedy exercise is that the hon. Member for Govan is handing the initiative to the Conservatives. If the principle is applied that any old person can move the writ, if the convention is not to be observed, or if there is to be a break in the convention that has been observed until now, of course the majority, Government party will inevitably take over any decision concerning a new writ, as they do so many other decisions.
The hon. Member for Govan and his hon. Friends give no thought to that aspect. They are concerned only with securing a few headlines in tomorrow's newspapers. However, they do a disservice to the members of the press if they believe that their tactics will automatically achieve for them the press coverage that they anticipate.
Government Members may consider that the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill is a good and necessary piece of legislation and that it must be pushed through. However, there is a substantial division of opinion in the House, and in Scotland there is virtual unanimity that the Bill is not wanted. However, instead of debate on that Bill taking place at a time when it would be well reported, and when the poverty of the Government's arguments would be highlighted, the success of the tacticians on the SNP Benches means that the debate will be postponed and carried off until the middle of the night.
That is the publicity coup of the hon. Member for Govan. Over the course of four or five hours, and just slightly within the rules of order, mumbo-jumbo has been churned out to make a point that has not anyway been honestly made. We know that one argument has been made outside the Chamber and another inside it. At the end of the day, we are no clearer about the SNP's objectives than we were at the start.
The hon. Member for Govan mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who seems to be his role model, and quoted the remark of my hon. Friend that the device of moving the writ would be used again—but only within the limits that the Government, with their silent majority, are willing to tolerate. The consequence of the hon. Member for Govan's actions is that another tactic will probably be lost. At the end of the day, the Conservative Benches will be stronger, not the voice of the Scottish people.
I have known the hon. Member for Govan for many years. I am sure that he will agree that for many years we used to call ourselves friends. We used to lunch together most days in the canteen of the General and Municipal Workers Union in Glasgow before the hon. Member entered the House of Commons and promised us all tea on the Terrace. What is so disappointing about this afternoon's exercise is the lowering of dignity that has been necessary to undertake it. That is the most distressing and disappointing aspect off all.
I remind the House of the words of the hon. Member for Govan in the debate on the Loyal Address on 19 November 1978. They give a message to us all:
I do not think that at the end of the day anything will save SNP Members from the consequences of their own folly. One must go back a very considerable period in the history of Scotland to find the Scottish people so badly served by a group of self-appointed generals. The best description of the Scottish National Party is that if they had been in charge at Flodden we Scots would have lost even if the English Army had been on our side."—[Official Report, 9 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 1273–4, 1276.]
The hon. Member was right in 1978, and his words also ring true this evening.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) illustrates precisely the Labour party's difficulties. He fulminates about other hon. Members unnecessarily using parliamentary time but then commits the same crime of which he accuses them. The hon. Member speaks of seedy actions and unseemly haste, but those words cannot come easily from a Labour party which has already chosen its candidate for Glasgow, Central—whose photograph appears today in The Scotsman, and who is already holding press conferences. That is another example of Labour's double standards.
The contributions that the House has just heard from two Labour Members show that the Labour party is perfectly willing to use up parliamentary time, but only if it can do so to attack the SNP. The Labour party could have joined in to ensure that the only weapon available to the Opposition—time—was used to block Government legislation. Even a 15-minute contribution from Labour Members tonight could have effectively held up Government business—but that is not something that the Labour party were willing to do. The Labour Opposition are clearly disorganised and do not know what they are about in terms of parliamentary business. The Government Whips must love them.
Question, That the Question be not now put, put and agreed to.

Self—governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee
1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 18th May 1989.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 18th May may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 19th May 1989.

Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub—paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub—Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub—Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusions of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time
7.—(1) On the allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to said period of two hours.
(3) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion.

Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub—Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed by the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) and other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub—paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub—Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour


after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee as the time at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub—Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation
13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub—Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub—Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
I do not think that I need remind the House of the importance of the Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill, to which my motion seeks to apply a timetable. I know that the measure is controversial, especially among Scottish Members, but I believe that it is also a sound and beneficial one. I would hope that the passions aroused by the Bill's contents will not prevent us this evening from discussing and deciding upon a reasonable framework within which the Bill may be hotly disputed.
One of the Bill's main aims is to enable Scottish schools to withdraw from local authority control to become self—governing schools, run by individual boards of management and funded directly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Other provisions relate to the establishment of college councils for colleges of further education; the formation of companies to manage colleges; and the abolition of the committee to consider pay and conditions of further education teaching staff. In addition, the Bill provides for the establishment of technology academies, testing in primary schools, and the appraisal of teachers and lecturers. Taken as a whole,

those measures represent a radical and dynamic package which will meet the developing needs of education in Scotland.
To those ends, the Government consider it most desirable that the first schools which wish to do so should be able to achieve self—governing status by the beginning of the 1990–91 school year—in August 1990. Moreover, the Bill sets 1 April 1990 as the date by which college councils are to be established. Interested parties will need to know in good time the legislative base on which they can proceed, including the regulations specifying which colleges are exempt from these provisions, and, perhaps most importantly, if we are to have the first tests in primary 4 and primary 7 running in the schools by the school year 1990–91, the Scottish Examination Board will need the extension of its powers under clause 63 as early as possible, so that the process of writing, scrutinising and processing test items can be completed by May 1991. To ensure that those developments can take place in an orderly and timely fashion, we need to commit ourselves to a definite timetable for the rest of the Bill's passage through the House.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can hardly hear the Leader of the House. If he were in a Scottish primary school, and if we still had the strap, he would get it. Will he please speak up so that we can hear exactly of what he is trying to convince the House? His speech is not convincing in substance, but delivered in that manner it will never—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Chair is not responsible for substance. The occupant of the Chair has very good hearing, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman also had quite good hearing.

Mr. Wakeham: Although the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I was saying, I noticed that he was still able to comment on its substance. To the hon. Gentleman's better hearing, I am proposing a timetable for the Bill.

Mr. Foulkes: I know that.

Mr. Wakeham: Good.
The Committee has so far spent about 120 hours discussing part I of the Bill. It must make quicker progress on the remaining 25 clauses if the Bill is to be enacted in time to enable the necessary measures that I have just outlined to be taken. In devising the timetable motion, I have sought to ensure proper and orderly consideration for the remainder of the Bill. There are, in fact, not more than 10 substantive clauses in the Bill which remain to be looked at, but the motion that I am proposing would allow for a further 36 hours for discussion in Committee, making a total of 156 in all. In addition, there will be a full day until midnight on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading. That is in keeping with the generous provisions which have become a traditional feature of the timetable motions that I have moved.
I have in mind, too, the need for a balanced consideration of the Bill. I accept, of course, that part I of the Bill, dealing as it does with provisions for self—governing schools, is the most controversial, but part II on further education, and part III, making provision for


technology academies, testing in primary schools, appraisal of teachers, and other matters, should also receive adequate scrutiny.

Mr. Foulkes: The Leader of the House may know that there is great concern in Scottish universities about the regrettable proposals to remove the rector from the chairmanship of the court. How much time will be allocated to discuss this in Committee and on the Floor of the House? It is a matter which some hon. Members who are not members of the Committee but who have some experience in Scottish universities wish to discuss. As the Leader of the House is trying to convince us to vote for his timetable motion, will he say exactly how much time will be allocated to that important matter?

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself for a moment, he will discover the answer to that conundrum.
To ensure that the Bill has adequate scrutiny, the motion, like previous timetable motions, includes provision for allocating the time in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading by reference to a Business Sub—Committee and a Business Committee which will determine how much time shall be allocated to the hon. Gentleman's point within the constraints of the motion.

Mr. Foulkes: I understand that the Leader of the House will play a leading role in the Business Committee. Will he ensure that the Business Committee gives proper consideration to the allocation of adequate time to the matter of the chairmanship of the court of the ancient universities of Scotland? It is a matter of some importance and has caused great controversy in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I have a particular interest in the matter. We are not members of the Committee so we would want to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House on Report. Will the Leader of the House bear that in mind?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not a member of the Committee either, so I shall not be present when those matters are discussed, but no doubt members of the Committee will take into account the hon. Gentleman's important considerations and ensure that time is allocated in the best interests of discussing the Bill in a proper and effective way. That seems to me the key to the sensibly weighted consideration of the rest of the Bill, giving the chance for those who are experienced in these matters, and, in the case of the Sub—Committee, for those who are most closely acquainted with the Bill's provisions, to discuss the timing and divide the available time appropriately between clauses. Moreover, since many of the provisions in the remaining clauses are technical or consequential, the Business Sub—Committee will have considerable scope for manoeuvre.
The time has come for the House to apply a timetable to the Bill. Any objective reading of the Standing Committee Hansard will convince right hon. and hon. Members that the Committee is not making as much progress as one might wish. The plain fact is that the Opposition have striven from the start to have the Bill guillotined. It is not my normal practice to make accusations of deliberate time wasting, but I must confess that my eyebrows rose a couple of notches when I read of the Chairman upbraiding the hon. Member for Western

Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for his tedious repetition in a speech that lasted for more than two hours. The same hon. Gentleman went on to conduct what might be termed a silent filibuster, standing but not speaking as he tried to eke out the proceedings for a few more minutes. I found tales of the glories of Blackpool, of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) having the ability to spin a football on his finger, and other examples of the Opposition deliberately prolonging the debate for several hours on amendments which Ministers had already said they would accept.
To take just one example, I notice that, at 3.50 am on last Tuesday's sitting. my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State accepted the Opposition's amendment extending the period of consultation a fter the result of the parents' ballot, from one month to three. Despite that, and despite a plea from the Chair that, when both sides of the Committee were agreed on a matter, it should be dealt with quickly, the Opposition continued to debate the issue for another half hour. This must be regarded, at such an hour in the morning, as a somewhat unusual way to proceed. None of these examples creates the impression that the Bill has been insufficiently considered.

Mr. John McAllion: Is it not strange that, when the Under—Secretary agreed to accept the amendment, Government Back Benchers combined to vote it down and defeat the Minister's intentions?

Mr. Wakeham: I was nol present, but my hon. Friend the Minister said that he would consider accepting the amendment. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends advanced cogent and sensible arguments to persuade him to move from accepting to considering the amendment.
I appreciate that it is a time—honoured tactic to use delay as a weapon against the Government, but it is equally legitimate for a Government to ensure that their business is not lost on that account. I commend the motion to the House in the belief that it represents a realistic way to debate the Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Dick Douglas: In his sentence before last, the Leader of the House—significantly—remarked that the Government wanted to get their legislation through. Is it not a plain fact, given the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, that the Government had in mind a terminal date by which they must have the Bill?
The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) shakes his head, but I am quite sure that the Leader of the House is quite capable of answering the question himself. Is it not a plain fact that the Government had in mind a terminal date by which they must have this legislation? That is the reason for the motion, not thorough and valid consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Wakeham: Managing the Government's business does not work like that. At the beginning of the year we have a series of Bills that must be passed by the end of the Session.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has had two goes. The first time he was not listening, and I am now trying to answer the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West t Mr. Douglas). I certainly do not intend to give way any more to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon


Valley. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West asked an intelligent question and I am trying to give an intelligent answer.
We certainly have a programme for the year, but it is not a final date for the Bill but the fact that 120 hours have been spent on part I that caused us to move the guillotine. In total, the Bill, which has 72 clauses, will spend 156 hours in Committee, compared with the Education Reform Act 1988, which had 147 clauses and spent 163 hours in Committee, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which had 131 clauses and spent 136 hours in Committee, and the Water Bill, which has 180 clauses and has spent 153 hours in Committee. By any standards—

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has said that he is not likely to give way for a moment or two.

Mr. Wakeham: I feel sorry for the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, so I give way.

Mr. Foulkes: I have visited the Vale of Glamorgan, so I know why the Leader of the House is not looking too happy today.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that Government have a programme to get through, and we understand that that is the responsibility of Government. Will he compare the number of Bills being packed into this Session with those in previous Sessions? The Prime Minister has said in the past that the burden of legislation considered by the House is too heavy.
Last year, we considered opting out for England and the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it would not apply in Scotland. The Bill therefore was not anticipated, was not included in any manifesto and was not announced.

Mr. Wakeham: It appears that the hon. Gentleman has had rather a tiring day in the Vale of Glamorgan. He should have a chat with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—we know that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley listens only to his own speeches—who has made a number of speeches criticising the Government for getting their legislation through. Compared with past years, the number of Bills in this Session has not been as high, but their quality has been extremely high. The proper time to announce the Government's legislative programme is the Queen's Speech, but as the hon. Gentleman did not make that speech I suppose that he did not listen to it.
I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: As the 200th anniversary of the commencement of the French revolution draws nearer, the Leader of the House looks more and more like Madame Defarge in drag. He added nothing to the consistency of his approach, because in recent debates on guillotine motions he usually said that it is not the Opposition who have protracted debate in Committee but the Government's business managers who have become tired of debate and embarrassed by the performance of Ministers. I have reason to believe that next week we may be debating a further guillotine on the

Dock Work Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will scarcely be able to make allegations of protracted debate on that Bill, which has had only three sittings.
Today, the right hon. Gentleman has accused my Scottish colleagues of not making serious efforts to debate the Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill. The motion does not mark a difference in Labour party tactics but is a Tory smokescreen to cover the shambles of this measure. In his sketch of proceedings in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman missed out one or two significant points. If the Government were doing their job properly, how does he explain that on several occasions so few Tory Members turned up that there was not a quorum and the Committee was unable to continue?
Nor did the right hon. Gentleman mention that, as a result of the assiduous work of my hon. Friends, the Government have made nearly 30 concessions, admittedly of varying significance. My understanding is that making points, obtaining explanations and securing changes to a Bill are the purpose of the Committee stage.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way at the moment.

Mr. Walker: Why not?

Mr. Dobson: I do not feel like it; that is one good reason.
There is a host of reasons for objecting to the motion to curtail debate on this important Bill. The short title of the Bill, Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland), is good enough reason for opposing it. The "etc." gives the game away and sums up the Government's attitude to education in general and Scottish education in particular. Who else but this Tory Government would dismiss in one three—letter abbreviation such major changes? Only a Tory with no direct connection to education in Scotland could encompass within "etc." major changes such as testing in primary schools, the appraisal and dismissal of teachers and lecturers, the abolition of the machinery for considering the pay and conditions of teaching staff and the establishment of companies to manage colleges, not to mention the placing of recorded children and young people in schools. All that is dismissed by one insulting "etc.". That "etc." covers clauses 48 to 72 which still await the Committee's scrutiny. If, as the Opposition expect, the parents of Scotland see sense and do not take up the proposition of having self—governing schools, these "etcs." will have a much more damaging impact on education in Scotland.
It is not just the Bill's title that insults everyone in Scotland who is concerned with education. At every stage the people, parents and teachers of Scotland have been treated with contempt. The best illustration of that is the history of the self—proclaimed main purpose of the Bill—to get some schools to opt out. The Government have no mandate from the people of Scotland for this proposal.
It is not that opting out was rejected by the people of Scotland at the last election. It is not even that opting out in Scotland was approved by the people of England at the last election, which is one of the curious propositions for mandates that the Government put forward. It is not even that opting out in Scotland was not mentioned by the Tories in Scotland at the last election. At the last election in Scotland, the Tories denied that they would introduce


opting out in Scotland. If they have any mandate in Scotland on this matter, it is a mandate not to force opting out on the people in Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not give way earlier. I had a relevant point to make. I shall make it in my speech, if I am called, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should be careful about the categorical statements that he makes from the Front Bench. Those of us who were elected in Scotland—

Mr. John Home Robertson: Not many.

Mr. Walker: —do as many do, regardless of which party we represent, and put forward in our constituencies our personal views. I was elected on the basis—nothing in our manifesto said otherwise—that I would try to persuade the Government, if returned, to give schools the opportunity to opt out. That is on record in 44 speeches. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his comment.

Mr. Dobson: It appears that opting out in education is following a precedent that the hon. Gentleman set during the general election. He apparently opted out of the Tories' election manifesto. That is very convenient for him at this moment. As I have said before in the House, when I discovered that the hon. Gentleman represented Aberfeldy, I realised what Burns meant when he wrote the poem "The Birks of Aberfeldy".
In the absence of any mandate, the Government propose to insist on going ahead with opting out and other important measures in the Bill. They have not consulted anyone in Scotland about whether to go ahead with these measures. There has been some consultation on how. It is no wonder that in Scotland there is anger among parents and parents' organisations, among teachers and teachers' organisations, among the Churches and among the education authorities. A combination of late consultation and haste in preparing a Bill is a guaranteed formula for frustration for those involved and bad law. My hon. Friends have extended discussion of the Bill in Committee because they are convinced that if it stays as drafted it will be bad law and harmful to children in Scotland.
On top of all that, the opting—out proposals for Scotland are worse than the ones already introduced in England. I do not know whether at the election the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was saying, "Yes, I would like opting out. The details of the opting out will be even worse and more stupid in Scotland than the ones proposed in England." The hon. Gentleman cannot have said that, because we did not know what the details were in England. In Scotland, special needs schools have not been exempted from these proposals; in England they are. The opting—out process in Scotland can be triggered by as few as 10 per cent. of parents, rather than 20 per cent. as in England. Under the Bill as drafted, the outcome of a decision on opting out can be decided by a simple majority on one ballot—although, following the cogent arguments mounted by my hon. Friends in Committee, the Government have, I understand, agreed to reconsider that aspect, and perhaps they will reach the stage arrived at in England. In England, schools with fewer than 300 pupils are exempted from opting out—not so in Scotland. Any suggestion that what is sauce for the English goose should be sauce for the Scottish gander is untenable, because the law as passed in England will not be applied to Scotland. The position will be worse in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Brown: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's colleagues have admitted this point to him. He should be aware that an amendment was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and other Front—Bench members of the Opposition team calling on the Government to include special schools within the provisions. I sought to sign that amendment, and found that it had been withdrawn, which was very sad. My hon. Friends and I were convinced of the excellence of the amendment, so I retabled it in my name. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the amendment to include special schools, which my hon. Friend the Minister accepted, was tabled by his hon. Friends.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has underestimated my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who has drawn my attention to one or two points that he thought that Conversative Members might mention. He drew my attention also to the fact that, as even the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has admitted, the amendment was withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it was not a sensible amendment. [Laughter.] I might add that the amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central concluded was not sensible was in due course almost automatically tabled by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes because he goes in for tabling that sort of thing, supporting such measures and getting them passed into law. I do not know what he is going on about.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point, because, as he knows, I have been deeply involved in this issue in Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the raucous laughter from Conservative Members showed that the debate on special schools appeared to be lost in a party political battle rather than being addressed as a clear issue affecting a small minority of our population? Those people have become deeply angry as they have read of the move by Conservative Members on that issue. Conservative Members will hear from concerned organisations as the Committee proceeds.

Mr. Dobson: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said. I cannot see why there is anything particularly silly, wrong or humiliating about an Opposition Member tabling an amendment and withdrawing it because he thought it inappropriate or wrong. After all, many Committee stages have involved a vast array of propositions that have been drafted by civil servants and approved by Ministers yet have been withdrawn because even Ministers accept that they are not a good idea. That is what the process is about. It certainly applies to amendments submitted by the Opposition as well.
One of the Government's other problems is that, with only five Scottish Tory Back Benchers, they have found it difficult to get people to serve on the Committee, especially as two of the five do not agree with opting out. The Bill has therefore been "augmented", if that is the right word—like the Augmented BBC Review Orchestra—by the addition of six English Tories. Having watched the Committee in action, I can say without fear of contradiction that the English element has not exactly helped the Government team to a win bonus. The formula so successfully applied by Rangers does not seem to work for the Tories.

Mr. Michael Irvine: Will the hon. Gentleman say just how long he spent in the Committee Room observing the proceedings?

Mr. Dobson: Long enough.
Three of the English augmenting MPs—the ones with close political ties with the Under—Secretary of State—represent what might be described as full—frontal Thatcherism in all its crude individualism—

Mr. Edward Leigh: Who were they?

Mr Dobson: I do not know whether I should name them, as it might endanger the other three. They say in the newspapers that the Prime Minister regularly meets a group of young Tories, including those three and the Under—Secretary of State. If, as is rumoured, she meets those hon. Members, I begin to understand her claim that there is no such thing as society. To describe this trio as philistine is to exaggerate their cultural aspirations. Throughout the Committee's proceedings they have displayed nothing but contempt for the people of Scotland and their institutions and for Scotland's elected representatives. I urge my hon. Friends from Scotland not to feel discriminated against, however, because these three Tories have exactly the same attitude to almost anything worthwhile in the rest of Britain, too.
Tories talk about a unitary Parliament and reject the idea of devolving power to a Scottish assembly. If they want to preserve the Union, that is all the more reason why they should treat the people of Scotland and their elected representatives with respect. The history of the Bill gives the lie to the Tory claim to be concerned about the people of Scotland and to regard the present arrangements as satisfactory.
The idea of allowing schools to opt out of local education is not just offensive in itself. It flies in the face of all that is best in the traditions of Scottish education and in the traditions of the whole nation. No nation on earth attaches more importance to education. As Burns wrote 202 years and one month ago, Scotland is
An ancient nation, famed afar
For genius and learning high …
Where every science—every noble art
That can inform the mind or mend the heart
Is known".
It is not just that Scots respect learning for its own sake, although they do. Education in Scotland has not been considered merely as something that benefits individuals and gives them opportunities, although it does. Education has been considered by Scottish people over the ages as something that enriches all and spreads out the
pith o' sense and pride o' worth
through a profoundly democratic people.
Except in a very few cases, the Scottish education system has been based on the local community, through schools and colleges catering for all. That was true even of the universities, which had more scholars from poor homes than those anywhere else in the world.
The best tradition of Scottish education has been good quality education for all, rejecting the elitism that has besmirched the English education tradition. That is why opting out is so reviled. To the people of Scotland, it is an alien idea. They fear it because it may produce alienation between one group of children and another and one group of parents and another. That is why the people of Scotland detest the Bill and why my hon. Friends fought so hard

against it in Committee. It is why we oppose the guillotine motion tonight and why we shall continue to fight the proposals and we shall reverse them. The Bill flies in the face of all the traditions that are best in Scotland, and when one talks about the best in Scotland and the best in education one is talking about the best in the world.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was uncharacteristically reluctant to give way to my hon. Friends. He did so only twice, and on each occasion he was clean bowled middle stump and gave clear evidence that, although he may have popped into the Committee for a minute or two, he had not read the Committee's proceedings with any attention to detail. It is anyway a change of Labour party policy to argue that the objectionable parts of the Bill are the parts that have not yet been discussed, rather than the parts that have been discussed.
Before I deal with the more general point, may I, perhaps unusually, solicit the support of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for my amendment on the chairmanship of the university courts?

Mr. Foulkes: I shall certainly consider that carefully. It sounds a great prospect. Those of us who fought hard for Prestwick are elated today at the prospect of great developments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree. In the spirit of such cross—party co—operation, I shall certainly consider that amendment.

Mr. Stewart: I shall join the hon. Gentleman in urging the Government to go full speed ahead with the air—road route, which will help both Prestwick and my constituency.
I thought that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would allege that the Labour party had spent so much time in Committee because they wished to go through the Bill line by line. That did not happen. What happened was a series of fits and starts. At some points, the Committee went extremely fast. Clause 15—a major clause dealing with ballots—for example, went through in about 15 minutes. I make no allegations about that. Other, purely technical, clauses took hours. The proceedings in Committee went badly wrong, first, because the Opposition were always determined that there should be a guillotine, and secondly because they were obsessed with one particular timetable—the timetable of the press.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), whom I do not criticise for not being present now, worked extremely hard and enthusiastically; I would not deny that. But he was absolutely obsessed with timing his great attacks with reference to the press. I happened to be the next to be called after one of his attacks on Tuesday 11 April. The hon. Gentleman did not listen to a word I said because he was busy talking to the press. I must say that one could understand the position that he adopted then. He had just moved three amendments in a major attack on the Government; one did not do what his press release said it would do; the second showed that he could not count; and the third reversed the amendment that the Labour party had originally tabled. Perhaps on that occasion, therefore, the hon. Gentleman could be excused for having to talk to the Press.

Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend recall that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) made an error? He issued a press release one Wednesday saying that he proposed to move certain amendments on Thursday. Then he found to his horror that the English Members wanted to talk about religious education. He did not like the idea of people wanting to talk about the Bill, so in a fit of pique he ordered his troops to filibuster for the rest of the day. That meant that we did not reach the amendments described in the press release until the following Tuesday. What absurd behaviour that was.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That gives the lie to any claim that Labour Members were interested in debating the Bill line by line. They wanted to skip six clauses in no time at all, again because of the timetable of the press. There was clearly time wasting in Committee, and that is the principal justification for the guillotine. Hon. Members would have congratulated the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on his masterly performance of filibustering, but, this afternoon, the term became somewhat relative. It was still good to start on one group of amendments at 6.30 and finish at 10.45—admittedly with a dinner break in between—and discuss something that was not in the Bill. I refer to academic selection. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that term. I thought that he would do so 100 times, but he did not reach that figure. He did so 64 times, and the Chairman warned him about repetition.
The hon. Gentleman introduced the new technique of the silent filibuster. He stood and said absolutely nothing. He was firmly and fairly brought to order by the Chairman, who said:
Order. Let us be clear. The hon. Mcnyber must not stand without speaking, because it cannot be recorded in Hansard. It cannot be said that during the day, the hon. Member has shown a lack of words, but, if he has now run out of words we may make progress."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 21 March 1989; c. 250.]
One of my uncontroversial amendments was brought forward by the Scottish Consumer Council. No Opposition Member signed my amendment, although they could have done so. I took three minutes to move the amendment. The Opposition indicated support. The Minister said that he would consider it. I said that I was content. The Opposition said that they supported my amendment. They were not content with the Minister's assurance. The Minister said that he would accept my amendment. The Opposition continued to filibuster until a closure was moved and agreed. That morning's proceedings were rightly described by the press—they managed to escape from the clutches of the hon. Member for Fife, Central for a moment or two—as degenerating into farce.
There was yet another example later. At 3.50 am on Tuesday 25 April, the hon. Member for Fife, Central moved an amendment. The Minister intervened. Did he say, "I will consider the amendment"? No. Did he say, "This is a good point, but the wording is technically flawed"? No. He said:
I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, so perhaps we can move on".
The Labour Members who were present continued to talk. The Chairman said:
I am in the Committee's hands, but I find it difficult to understand why amendment No. 154 cannot be dealt with quickly."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25 April 1989; c. 1005, 1006.]

Still Labour Members talked, after the Minister had accepted their amendment, after the Chairman had demonstrated as strongly as possible that the Committee should move on. It was crystal clear to Conservative Members that a timetable motion was inevitable. I have had 10 years' experience of sitting on Committees, but Labour Members' behaviour was quite without precedent.
The Opposition were constantly in a muddle. They undertook that discussion on clause 28 would start at midday on 25 April. That debate was delayed for hours. I inform the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that the debate was delayed for hours because the Opposition were embarrassed that some of their amendments did not mean what they thought they meant. Any sensible Opposition would have admitted that and said, "It was a mistake; let us carry on." However, the Committee was treated to endless filibustering so that the Opposition could avoid the minor embarrassment of making that admission when the press were present instead of at 4 o'clock in the morning.
The Bill is an enabling measure—at least, the controversial parts of it are. Nothing happens in relation to opting out unless Scottish parents want it to happen. I do not criticise the Opposition's work rate. I do not know whether you are a reader of P. G. Wodehouse, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member for Fife, Central reminds me of Rupert Baxter—the efficient Baxter of the flashing spectacles, who rushes around with mind—boggling energy and enthusiasm at all times. No one could criticise hon. Members' work rate or the way in which they tackle the measure.
The last two Scottish education Bills that the House has considered since 1979 were not guillotined. In many respects, they were much more radical than this one. The timetable motion is necessary for the orderly progress of the Bill. It has been made necessary by the absurd time—wasting tactics that have been used again and again by Labour Members on the Committee. There is no doubt that the guillotine will provide considerable relief for Opposition Front Bench Members.

Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson) as being bowled middle stump. As those of us who served on the Committee know, any fast bowling from Conservative Back—Bench Members was directed not at the Opposition but at the Minister. There were not a few occasions when his middle stump was removed by his hon. Friends who rebelled against him. They sufficiently embarrassed the Minister so that he tried to deny it profusely in the press later.
The hon. Member for Eastwood referred to the Opposition being reluctant to debate a set of amendments at the agreed time of 12 o'clock. The Government were in control of the timetable. They could easily have wound up the debate at any point in the twenty—six—and—a—half—hour sitting, but they refused to do so because they wanted to clock up hours, no doubt to justify this motion.
The hon. Members for Eastwood and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) were keen. They said, "We are looking forward to the debate. We will embarrass the Labour Opposition." However, they did not speak because they were embarrassed about their claims, which


could not be substantiated. They backed away from the debate. The Opposition did not back away from the debate. We debated the issue when we had time.
Guillotine motions can be justified by democratically elected Governments, but it is a point of dispute whether the Government have been democratically elected in the context of Scottish legislation. It is true that Oppositions who have lost general elections and are worried about it sometimes do everything in their power to frustrate and delay Government legislation. One of the most potent weapons which an Opposition can wield is that of time. Oppositions can slow the parliamentary process. They can talk at great length on matters of little significance or importance which are disguised in the form of amendments. They can filibuster ad infinitum. They can seek line by line and word by word to pressure the Government into making concessions which they believe will improve the Bill, either by softening it or by changing its impact from that which the Government originally intended. It is strange that the manifestations of most of those tactics were deployed in Committee. They were deployed by Conservative Back—Bench Members on many occasions, in an attempt to justify the motion.
That method of parliamentary opposition can be legitimate, and all hon. Members would accept that. It can equally be legitimate for an elected Government to call a halt when they believe that the Opposition are simply indulging in time wasting and are no longer seriously debating suggestions for amending a Bill. A guillotine is legitimate only when the Government's parliamentary majority reflects an electoral majority in the country at large. When the Government's parliamentary majority reflects the will of the people who have elected them—

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He can make his own speech in his own time. I gave way to him time and again in Committee, and hon. Members were distracted by a lot of irrelevant nonsense.
Oppositions are always entitled to oppose any legislation brought forward by Government. They are not entitled to frustrate the will of the people by parliamentary manoeuvring. That is the only occasion when Governments are entitled to ensure the passage of legislation by introducing a guillotine motion. How does that principle apply to this motion and this piece of Government legislation?

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member can make his own speech in his own time. I will not give way to hon. Members who have tried to embarrass the people of Scotland time and again by the way in which they have behaved. The hon. Members who are trying to intervene repeatedly refused to give way to me in Committee.
The Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill applies exclusively to Scotland, affecting only the people of Scotland—the parents, pupils, teachers and ancillary staff of Scotland and nowhere else. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask whether there is any democratic legitimacy for this Bill, and any kind of support for it within Scotland.
I shall look at the evidence available on this matter. For example, what is the evidence on parliamentary elections? The most recent general election in Scotland saw a complete collapse of Tory support and a reduction of their number of representatives in this House by more than half. There were previously 21 Tory Members representing Scotland, whereas there are now only 10. The Conservatives are unable even to staff Scottish Standing Committees or, in fact, to form a Scottish Select Committee comprising Government Back Benchers from Scotland. Even the Government's Scottish Whip now comes from an English constituency, so bereft are the Government of Scottish Back—Bench support. In parliamentary terms, there is thus no democratic support in Scotland for the Bill, which will affect only the people of Scotland.
What about local expressions of support? For example, at the level of education authorities elected across Scotland by local electorates, there are nine regional councils and three island councils that act as such authorities. Not one is controlled by the Conservative party, since the regional elections of 1986. Not one of those bodies actually supports this Bill, which is being railroaded through the House. The Scottish Churches have registered their opposition to the Bill, as have the teachers' unions, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and even two of the Government's own Back Benchers from Scotland.
Thus the question must be asked: are the Government justified in assuming that the will of the Scottish people is being frustrated by parliamentary manoeuvring by the official Opposition? The only possible answer is that they are not justified in any way in that claim. The next question is whether the guillotine motion is justified. Again, the only answer can be that it is not. Of course, some Conservative Members will argue that what Scotland wants is completely immaterial, and that Scotland will get what the United Kingdom Parliament decrees it will get, no matter how tenuous the link between the United Kingdom parliamentary majority and the popular majority, whether that popular majority be at the Scottish or the United Kingdom level.
This is a particularly repulsive doctrine, because it is profoundly undemocratic and contemptuous of the will of the people of Scotland and indeed of people across the United Kingdom. Like all forms of tyranny, such as the poll tax, it always calls itself something else, masquerading behind the democratic facade. Sometimes it calls itself the concept of the unitary Parliament; at other times it describes itself as the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. However it describes itself, it is wholly and unashamedly opposed to the doctrine of popular sovereignty and the democratic principle that legislation can be introduced only with the democratic consent of the people to whom it applies. That is why a democratic Parliament would look to protect and secure the rights of the people against an elected dictatorship and not collude with the elected dictatorship, denying these very rights to the people of Scotland.
We have already heard the argument of the Member for Eastwood that the Bill is purely permissive, and that nothing has been imposed on anyone without their consent. He has said that only in schools where parents vote for the procedure will opting out actually be implemented. That is absolute hogwash, a spokescreen set up to confuse public opinion and get around the very


undemocratic nature of the business that the Government are now embarking on.
First, an option cannot be based on a minority of parents choosing to vote for self—governing status. The actual decision lies with the Secretary of State for Scotland. The parental ballot is purely indicative, and the Secretary of State can take it into account or refuse to take it into account—the decision rests with him whether or not the schools opt out of education authorities.
Secondly, schools which opt out do not do so in isolation. When they go, they take with them their current grants and capital allocation that otherwise would have gone to education authority schools. They therefore divert much—needed financial support away from education authority schools. When the self—governing schools go, they will forcibly take with them teachers and other staff in those schools who have no rights to choose to stay with their current employer, the education authority.
Thirdly, the Bill does not only deal with schools opting out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said; the "etc." in the title covers a whole range of measures that have nothing to do with opting out. Further education colleges have been forcibly restructured to manipulate the majority of business representation on every college council. They have been forced into a more and more commercial and entrepreneurial direction, which the Government want but nobody else wants, least of all those in Scotland.
National testing for the primary sector of students aged between seven and 12 has been forcibly introduced into Scotland. Public funding for new private schools, called technology academies, has been forcibly introduced in Scotland. The abolition of the Scottish joint negotiating committee on further education has been forcibly introduced into Scotland. New forms of teacher appraisal and teacher dismissal have been imposed on teachers and employers alike in Scotland. There is nothing permissive about any of those measures. They have simply been imposed on Scotland undemocratically and against the wishes of those people.
This guillotine motion is therefore profoundly undemocratic, because it seeks to frustrate the real will of the Scottish people, as does the Bill itself. It should be resisted by any true democrats in this House.
We have been accused of organising a filibuster. What we have simply tried to do is examine the Bill in detail, exploring fully the wide ramifications and implications of the measure as it will affect the people of Scotland. We have done that in respect of part I, clauses 1 to 47, over the past 12 days in Committee. We are now denied the opportunity to do that on a similar basis in respect of parts II and III and clauses 48 to 72 because debate is to be stifled and examination curtailed by a Government timetable.
I look to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes particularly to support the Opposition in trying to defeat this guillotine motion. He said in Committee:
I hope that the Committee will take the opportunity to sit for as long as is necessary for those such as myself who have yet to be persuaded by Opposition amendments. It is essential that we have a long and leisurely Committee."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25 April 1989, c. 18.]
I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that parts II and III of the Bill will be given sufficient time, when the timetable motion allows only five days to cover clauses 48 to 72 and the schedules.

Mr. Michael Brown: Indeed I said that, because I was assuming that the Labour Opposition would not waste time. I was assuming that they would take the debate seriously and would not then spend hours and hours debating an amendment when my hon. Friend the Minister said that he was prepared to consider it. At the point when Labour Members then conducted a filibuster, after my hon. Friend had said that he was willing to consider the amendment, it was clear that only a guillotine motion would solve the problem for the Opposition.

Mr. McAllion: It is difficult to take any admonition from the hon. Gentleman. At one point in Committee, he actually threatened myself and other Scottish Members of the Committee. He said that if we did not shut up he would make sure that concessions given by the Minister would be defeated by the Back Benches. It is hardly consistent with democratic debates for a Scottish Member to be threatened by an English Member that a Scottish Bill will not be amended as Scottish Members want it amended because he is being kept out of bed. That is intolerable.
It is important that we spend as much time considering the next two parts of the Bill as we spent on the first part. When we spent 12 days discussing that, we found out the Minister's real intentions on several points. On 16 March, at column 119, the Minister said that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would not consent to the introduction of general academic selection. However, much later, on 18 April at column 790, the same Minister confirmed that, if self—governing schools could secure the endorsement of the Secretary of State for Scotland, they could introduce general academic selection. Something that was not on at the beginning of the Committee, suddenly became on much later when the Minister's defences were down and he let it slip. The purpose of our deliberations in Committee is to find out such things.
At column 754, the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) stated:
I fully support the right of parents to opt for schools whose admissions policy is based on academic selection."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 18 April 1989; c. 754.]
At column 783, the Minister congratulated his hon. Friend the Member for Hexham on an excellent speech. That was the same Minister who said that he would not allow general academic selection to be introduced via this Bill. It is important to spend a long time in Committee deliberations because, when the Minister makes mistakes, we find out what the Government's real intentions have been all along.
The Government's conduct of the Bill in Committee has been as provocative as it has been contemptuous of Scottish opinion. The Government's Back Benches were packed by extremist ideologues of the No Turning Back group. They displayed an obsessive interest in the technicalities of tabling arnendments, but no interest whatsoever in how the Bill may affect Scottish people and the pupils who attend Scottish schools. However, in defence of some the Government's Back Bench members of that Committee, I must say that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) was less extreme than some of his hon. Friends. He at least has a Scottish auntie and claimed that his grandfather came from Fife, so there must be some good things about some Tory Members on that Committee.
As the Committee has gone on, it has become obvious that the Government's Back Benchers have become more and more irritated by debates on what the Bill would mean for Scottish schools and that they have finally let their Minister know in no uncertain terms that they want out of the Committee and back to their own obsessions. If any hon. Member doubts the influence of Conservative Back Benchers over their Ministers, I refer them to the revolt that took place in Committee when Conservative Members defeated what the Minister intended to achieve. The Chairman had to suspend the Committee for five minutes to allow the Minister to try to quell his Back Bench rebellion so that he could try to restore some order to the Committee.
It is also true that the Minister now wants out of the Committee, so that he can go to the Tory party conference in Perth on 10 May and announce what he will call the great parliamentary success of getting the Bill through Committee. We have this guillotine motion for no other reason than that the hon. Member for Stirling wants to trot along to Perth to boast to the ladies with blue rinses and flowery hats about his great prowess in Parliament.

Mr. Allan Stewart: On a fairly simple point, surely the hon. Gentleman has read the terms of the guillotine motion? It is absolutely clear even at a cursory glance that the Committee will sit well after 10 May.

Mr. McAllion: I have read it, but the Minister has already given the game away. He will claim at Perth on 10 May that the most contentious part of the Bill has already completed its Committee stage because clauses 1 to 47 are now through. The Minister has already made that claim in Committee, and I have no doubt that he will make exactly the same claim when he speaks to the Tory ladies in Perth.
The House should not give in to the yowling of Conservative Members who are the equivalent of Parliamentary yobs. This House owes it to the people of Scotland to act responsibly on this motion.
Although I have many disagreements with Mr. Paul Scott, who recently became the rector of Dundee university—he is a member of the Scottish National party—I agree with some of the analyses in his rectorial address about the nature of the Government and the kinds of measure that we are now dealing with. He said:
They would like to confine our schools and universities, except for a privileged minority who can pay for something better, to the subjects which seem to have a direct commercial utility. They call this 'enterprise culture'. There is another, more traditional and more appropriate name; it is barbarism.
Mr. Scott is absolutely right to describe what the Government are trying to do to Scottish education as "barbarism". He continued:
It is now impossible to talk about education without talking in political terms. Like everything else, education is under political attack and can only he defended by political means.
The Government, and the Minister in particular, are responsible for reducing Scottish education to that sorry state.
Those Conservative Members who still represent Scotland will have to pay the political price for the way in which they are legislating on education for Scotland. They will pay the same price in 1991 that their ex—hon. Friends paid in 1987 over the poll tax. While no one in Scotland

looks forward to the Bill's enactment, everyone in Scotland is looking forward to 1991, to a Tory—free Scotland and to a Labour Government delivering a Scottish Parliament that will decide for the Scots how Scottish education should be run.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): At least 10 hon. Members seem to be trying to catch my eye, and as the debate must conclude at 10 minutes to 11 o'clock, unless hon. Members exercise some restraint, I am afraid that some will be disappointed. I call Mr. Bill Walker.

Mr. Bill Walker: I rise with some sadness because one entered the Committee on the understanding that the Labour party had staffed it with some of its brighter, more intelligent and more articulate Members. I do not argue that they are brighter or that they are more articulate. They are certainly politicians who, given a fair wind, could go a long way because they have the qualities that should and could have produced the kind of debate in Committee that would have been testing and trying for the Government. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in the 10 years that I have been a Member of the House, I have never witnessed such a collection of talented individuals so badly managed, and so badly led. From one hour to the next they did not appear to have any tactic that made sense, other than initially to ensure that their business was in keeping with what the press would require.

Mr. McAllion: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute because I do not want to end my sad speech without first saying clearly that I believe that if the Labour party had had one old hand on the Committee he would have made sure that the Committee conducted itself in a way that made the maximum use of the time available.

Mr. McAllion: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he thought the performance of the Labour Opposition on the Committee was so poor because his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has told me that this was the best Committee on which he has served because of the high standard of debate from both sides. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is out of step with his right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Walker: I do not withdraw anything that I have said. Anyone who wants to read the reports of the conduct of our Committee will discover that an astonishing new strategy—I am not sure what to call it—was adopted by the Opposition. It certainly was a novel approach. The Opposition tabled amendments in order to speak and vote against them. That is novel and I have never read of such an approach being adopted in the history of Parliament. I have never come across it in the 10 years in which I have served on Committees.

Mr. Foulkes: How can the hon. Gentleman give such a detailed assessment of what happened in Committee, given that each time I visited that Committee he was sitting there with ear muffs on?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has made the same mistake as the Chairman, the first time that I put them on.


If the hon. Gentleman made any attempt to understand what goes on in this place he would know that aids are issued on the Committee corridor for those who have difficulty hearing because of background noise, or whatever. I made use of that equipment and tonight the hon. Gentleman has again shown how he constantly jumps in without researching to discover the evidence.

Mr. Leigh: I hope that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will withdraw his unnecessary remark. Before my hon. Friend develops his speech, will he deal with a constitutional point which was raised at length by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who refused to give way? If he had given way I would have reminded him not only of his tactics in Committee and when he voted on entirely English legislation, but of when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) moved the famous five guillotine motions in one day. He got them through the House only because of the preponderance of Scottish Members. The constitutional argument advanced by the hon. Member for Dundee, East is entirely false.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is correct. I intended to touch on that matter, as it is important.
I believe that some members of the Opposition support the unitary Parliament. Certainly my remarks do not reflect in any way on the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). His stance on the Union and the unitary Parliament shows that he should not be criticised. Some of his hon. Friends, however, appear to support the unitary Parliament when it suits them and on other occasions to make an issue about whether something has a mandate.

Mr. William McKelvey: rose—

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment.
The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Dundee, East is amusing. His argument is a bit like the conduct of the Committee—it was so unprofessional as to be amusing. At great length, the hon. Member for Dundee, East spoke about mandates and drew attention to the fact that English Members were serving on the Committee. However, every time there was a Division in Committee Room 9—dealing with English legislation—he disappeared. He was properly carrying out his duties and I do not argue with that. On many occasions I have had to serve on two Committees—on too many occasions—but the hon. Member for Dundee, East cannot deny that he voted on purely English matters when he had not heard the debate. That was in order and was proper, but I do not believe that it was consistent to come back to our Committee Room to argue that it was somehow wrong for Conservative Members to vote on Scottish legislation, especially as he had voted on English legislation.

Mr. McAllion: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman is too impetuous, probably because he is so vulnerable about this.
It is also important to remember that, in the past, the Labour party has made substantial changes that affect Scotland, England and Wales, on a majority of one. It did not have anything remotely like a majority in England.

Mr. McAllion: Perhaps I can explain the way in which I square the fact that I voted on English legislation with my claim that the House should recognise the desire of the Scottish people for an assembly. I do not control the nature of the United Kingdom Parliament. The Government control that and they can introduce legislation to reform it. As long as I am a member of the unitary Parliament I shall vote on all the legislation that comes through Parliament. The overwhelming majority of the Scottish people have said that they want their own Scottish Parliament. If the Government were democratic they would give them that Parliament and it would decide its own education policies. The Government have refused to listen to the Scottish people, and I continue to draw attention to that fact.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been in this place long enough to know that if he talks to the usual channels, to his Whips, and tells them that, on a matter of principle, he does not want to serve on a particular Bill where he may be required to vote in Divisions having not heard the argument, I am sure that they would ensure—

Mr. McAllion: I was a member of the Committee.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman was not present in the Committee considering the English legislation. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I am prepared to support people who argue on matters of principle. I have always believed that one should give credit where credit is due. That is why I wanted to make it clear that the hon. Member for Garscadden is consistent. He may have difficulties with some of his hon. Friends, but I believe one day he wants to sit on the Treasury Bench. That is not an ambition of which one should be critical. It is a line ambition. The hon. Gentleman wants to sit on the Treasury Bench in a unitary Parliament, as do many other Labour Front Bench spokesmen from Scotland. They cannot argue against us using Members from other constituencies, as we do properly, to serve on our Committees.

Mr. McKelvey: The hon. Gentleman is not consistent. I thought that I heard him say earlier that he was elected as an individual, that he had made it clear that he wanted schools in Tayside, North to have the opportunity to opt out, and that that gave him grounds to argue legitimately for his point of view. I have sympathy with that point of view. If the people of Tayside, North, want to do a UDI on opting out, it is an argument that he can defend. At the same time a majority of Labour Members were returned in Scotland and it was not in the Conservative manifesto at any time that Scottish schools could opt out; indeed, when the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked the Tory office that very question, he was assured that opting out would not be an option for Scotland. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) cannot have it all ways.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has picked on the wrong Member. He should know from my record here that the Front Bench and the Whips know that they cannot dragoon the hon. Member for Tayside, North to act in a way that he believes wrong. My record in the House bears that out. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have that kind of debate, he should pick on someone else.
Another reason why we need the guillotine motion is the saga of clause 28 on which Labour Members kept talking. They would not have done that if they had been managed properly. Sadly for the Labour party, Strathclyde regional council made a decision that was contrary to the high—flown and long speeches that we had been listening to from Labour Members. It is all on the record. Hon. Members were criticising not just the Bill but the legislation that established the school boards. Then Strathclyde regional council came out with something that went further. The Labour Members could not give an answer, so to save face they kept talking for hours while they waited for the channels, whatever they are, to give them a briefing. At intervals of 15 to 20 minutes we asked them for their view. As we know, about 10 minutes before the Committee was due to rise, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was able to make a statement. However, that was some hours after he had been asked the original question about the position of Strathclyde. That showed clearly the problems that Labour Members were facing.
If there is one reason why the motion should be accepted and proceedings on the Bill should be guillotined, it is the example that we had this afternoon of how the business of the House can be held up. Let me treat the House to an extract from a discussion that took place on Radio Scotland. It tells us a lot. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, East is not in the Chamber. This is what he said about the Bill that we are discussing:
What I would argue is that when it comes back for its Report stage, which is an open—ended stage in Parliament, we make every effort to ensure that that debate goes on for as long as it takes and if that means going through the night and into the next day and disrupting the next day's business, then we do that".
Opposition Members have been condemned by the voice of the hon. Member for Dundee, East telling the whole of Scotland why we require a guillotine.
If the hon. Member for Garscadden had been able to discipline his troops properly, perhaps it would not have been Labour Members who kept the debate going all night. The example we have seen this afternoon shows clearly that the other Opposition parties are prepared to do that. That, more than anything, is why we need the motion to succeed this evening.
I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion because I understand that a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I could speak for much longer—

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall not give way because I have given way a number of times and many Opposition Members, quite properly, want to speak. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman a number of times.
I also found interesting during the debate the many press releases that were put out by the Opposition. They will live to regret doing so in the years ahead. I found it interesting that the hon. Member for Garscadden, for whom I have much respect—

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman should not keep saying that. He should withdraw that disgraceful slur—

Mr. Walker: rose—

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman continually to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden? It will do my hon. Friend unending harm at home in his constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This is a short debate and we should do better to get on with it.

Mr. Walker: I do not doubt the integrity of the hon. Member for Garscadden. I do not agree with his policies or what he is trying to achieve within the Labour party, Scotland and the United Kingdom. However, I do not deny his right to do that if he wishes and I do not want anyone to think that I doubt his integrity, because I do not.
I find it sad and disappointing that the only case that the hon. Member for Garscadden can make against the Government is to say that the Tory Benches have been packed with an unpleasant collection of Right—wing, hard—line extremists. If that is a description of me, the hon. Gentleman will know that it will probably increase my majority in Tayside, North. It will not damage it, because my constituents do not like extreme language such as we have heard, not from the hon. Member for Garscadden, but certainly from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)—who has debased parliamentary activity and has described hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Garscadden, in a way that damages the standing of hon. Members and will not do his party any good.
I invite the hon. Member for Govan to come to Tayside, North every week and make speeches such as the one he has delivered about the hon. Member for Garscadden. He presents an extremist view. I have never done so, although I never deny my views. I never attack hon. Members in such a personal and hideous way. It is time that we got down to the serious business of debating the issues, instead of launching personal attacks against individuals.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I have found this an interesting debate. Although I read the Committee debates in the Official Report, it was helpful to hear, through the oral evidence tonight, exactly what went on in Committee.
I shall touch on two main points: the use of the guillotine, and the important clauses and amendments, the discussion of which will be either severely curtailed or prevented altogether. I understand that in a debate on a guillotine the Minister often prefaces his remarks with the words, "I move this motion to curtail debate on a Bill which fully honours our election commitment." The Minister has been unable to do that today because the Bill will bring about a fundamental change in the Scottish education system, of which there was no hint in the election manifesto and no word during the General Election. Quite the contrary: we were assured that Scotland would not choose the opting—out route.
We are bebating the allocation of time for a Bill that should not be discussed here at all, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. It is a matter for deliberation by Scots for Scots in Scotland; it is the business of no one else. Tragically, however, as an article in The Scotsman yesterday pointed out,
The Scots have their own education system but have no way of deciding what happens to it.
As for the purely mechanical question of procedure, of course I understand that all Governments use the


guillotine. It is, however, a crude and inept weapon, which I believe should be scapped as part of the general reforms in the House that many of us would like—including an end to the ridiculous all—night sittings.
It is my belief and that of my party that agreement should be reached at the beginning of a Bill on the allocation of time. How much better it would be if we dealt with such matters in a more structured and sensible manner, with proper timetabling that would ensure adequate scrutiny of all parts of a Bill. Instead, we are being asked halfway through to shorten consideration of a Bill that is highly contentious and is being pushed through against the wishes of the Scottish people and the majority of their elected representatives. So much for democracy.
As I recall, a guillotine motion was introduced for the poll tax Bill, and shortly thereafter the Tories lost 11 seats in Scotland. Perhaps this debate heralds the loss of the last 10.
How can a Bill with such potentially far—reaching implications for Scotland's education system be given the necessary scrutiny and elucidation when it is being handled by a Committee with English Conservative Members, and steamrollered by a Government with minimal sensitivity to Scotland's education needs? Some clauses have not yet been covered, and are now in danger of not being covered properly.
I believe that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) mentioned the clause dealing with college councils and the balance of their membership. If there is a guillotine, what guarantee is there that a proper discussion can be held about the composition of such councils? It is extremely important for representatives of college management, staff and students to be accorded proper status on them. They should surely be given more than the derisory influence provided by clause 48—
not more than one fifth".
of the membership. We should also have a chance to discuss the merits of giving "not less than hai' the number of representatives to employer organisations: while the needs and interests of local employers should be reflected, colleges must also have wider goals in order best to serve their students and the areas in which they are located.
Let me touch briefly on a matter that has caused deep affront to the Scottish people—the chairing of university courts as dealt with in schedule 10. Time must be given for us to discuss such a major change as the proposed abolition of the right of university rectors to chair meetings of the courts, which represents an attempt to undermine a long—standing constitutional tradition—dating, I believe, from 1889—and erodes the rights of students and staff in the governing of the universities. That is symptomatic of a wider assault on students' rights—the poll tax and grant cuts—and of a general indifference to Scotland's unique education system which has caused deep offence in Scotland.
Knowing the Government's ideology, I can understand that they are quite happy to push through legislation which was not contained in the Conservative party manifesto and to do so without the consent of the people for whom they are legislating. I am puzzled by the fact that Scottish Office Ministers are prepared to collude, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has already said, in this. I believe that that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the values and beliefs of the Scottish people which I find quite staggering.
Why are Scottish Office Ministers behaving like this? What motivates a Scottish Office Minister? The most curious and intriguing of the Scottish Office Ministers is the Minister responsible for education. If one knew him other than as a Minister on the other side of the Dispatch Box, it might be easier to understand what makes him tick. What are his roots? Does he know Scotland and its people? Does he have a sense of history? Is Scotland important to him? It would be nice to hear from the Minister later. Perhaps he can answer my questions then. I do not know anything about him and would like to hear what he really believes.
I believe that a London Government—any London Government—are Scotland's gaolers. Until we can throw off their stranglehold and are allowed to look after our home and domestic affairs through our own Scottish Parliament, we will continue to be subjected to Bills like the Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill which are alien to our instincts and aspirations.

Mr. Michael Brown: This guillotine motion is very important for the Labour party. It is necessary to put Labour Members out of their misery. I was looking forward very much to serving on the very important Standing Committee on the Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill and I was grateful to the Committee of Selection when it nominated me to serve on that Committee.
I was looking forward to sharing a number of hours with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). I did not know him very well, but I had met him socially before. As I explained to the Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman and his delightful wife and I shared a weekend together at the Gleneagles hotel last year. I was looking forward very much to listening to him in his political context as the shadow spokesman leading for the Opposition on this Bill.
I was very sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was not a member of the Committee. I was delighted to see that the Government took the Bill so seriously that, in addition to the Minister responsible for education at the Scottish Office, the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the full Scottish Office team turned out. The Opposition considered the Bill to be so important that they did not even include the main shadow spokesman for Scottish affairs on the Committee. Indeed, the only Opposition Members from Scotland on the Committee were Members who were elected to the House in 1987. They are delightful characters and they made interesting if very lengthy speeches. However, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) publicly admitted to the House earlier that the Opposition had fielded a weak team—they may have been generous and gentle—of new hon. Members who were at sixes and sevens.
I am reminded of the famous press release to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) drew attention in Committee. That press release was issued by the Labour party to The Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald, stating that Labour Members would debate a certain clause at a certain time in Committee. At the bottom of that press release was the special code "6/7"—which makes it clear that the Opposition were at sixes and sevens. They were tabling amendments one day and


withdrawing them the next. When I tabled those selfsame amendments because I was convinced of their excellence, Labour Members voted against them.
A couple of weeks ago, the Opposition tabled a very interesting amendment. I went along and signed that amendment so that the Opposition could not withdraw it.

Mr. McAllion: Grow up.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) should tell those of his hon. Friends who represented his interests on the Committee that they should grow up. They need to learn that when they table amendments, those amendments are not their property but the property of the Committee. If I am so inspired by those interesting amendments that I support them, Opposition Members must think that through. They table amendments to which they speak at great length and then withdraw them—and then do not like it because I want to vote for their amendments.
There were occasions on which my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for Scottish education matters was prepared to accept some amendments. However, the Opposition glibly concluded the debate by saying that those amendments were a mistake. Whenever we go into a Standing Committee in future, perhaps we may have a note against every single Opposition amendment saying, "This is a serious amendment," or, "We hope and pray that the Government do not accept this amendment," or, "We pray that the Minister will not accept the amendment."

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will recall that he entered the House at the same time I did.

Mr. Brown: Yes—10 years ago tonight.

Mr. Foulkes: I have sat through the debate as a Scottish Member to make some assessments. The hon. Gentleman comments on the capacities and abilities of certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I make the judgment that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) speaks with more wisdom, intelligence and ability after only two years in the House than the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes—who is treating the debate in a facile and facetious manner, like a little schoolgirl instead of as an hon. Member of the House.

Mr. Brown: Is it facetious when my hon. Friends take Standing Committee debates seriously, consider all the Opposition amendments, and decide to support them and to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister to accept them? Is it facile when those of my hon. Friends serving on the Committee support amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition? Is it facile of me to put my name to Opposition amendments? If so, they must be very facile amendments.
The best thing that the House can do is to put the Opposition Members who sat on that Committee out of their misery. They, more than anybody else, need the guillotine. If anyone has brought the proceedings of that Standing Committee into disrepute in the eyes of the Scottish people it is those hon. Members.
English Members who were nominated to serve on the Committee were well aware of the possibility that their membership would be criticised. Scottish Opposition Members even went to the extent of issuing a press release before the Committee even sat for the first time, saying how disgraceful it was that English Members had been put on the Scottish Standing Committee considering the Bill. They expected us to sit there and get on with our constituency correspondence. They expected, they hoped, and when the Committee got going they prayed, that we would sit there silently. But we did not. We spoke in nearly every debate on nearly every group of amendments on nearly every clause stand part debate.
The other day we had an interesting clause stand part debate. The hon. Member for Dundee, East spoke at very great length on clause 29. He said how important it was that the clause be amended. He spoke for hours on how important it was not to pass clause 29 because it needed amendments. I then discovered that not a single amendment to clause 29 had been tabled by any Opposition Member. Only one amendment had been tabled and that was in the name of my hon. Friend the Minister.
You are getting the picture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that my hon. Friends were being pilloried by the hon. Member for Garscadden as being the most objectionable and thoroughly obscene Members of the House. You know me better than that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You know that I and my hon. Friends take our duties seriously.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Before my hon. Friend gets too excited, will he do the House a service? The hon. Lady, the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said that the Minister knew nothing about the history of Scotland. Will my hon. Friend be good enough to ask her on my behalf if she can explain why Scotland Yard is so called?

Mr. Brown: I might be straining your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I followed my hon. and learned Friend down that road. If he catches your eye I am sure that he will invite the hon. Lady to intervene on his speech.
My hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) piloted the excellent Bill through the Standing Committee so well. I know my hon. Friend the Minister very well. I have had the pleasure of knowing him and his political philosophy for many years. Ten years ago today, his wife became my constituency secretary, and for four years I got to know her and my hon. Friend very well. He is a conviction politician who has been a moderate, meek and mild Minister throughout the Standing Committee. He has accepted amendments when he has been convinced of their arguments, so much so that sometimes he was in the extraordinary position of recommending an Opposition amendment, wanting us to vote for that amendment and then finding that the Opposition had withdrawn it.
We had many debates that went on for hours because the Opposition were frightened, having issued those ridiculous press releases well in advance and discovered that all the amendments to which they planned to speak were wholly out of order or did not mean what they had meant them to mean. They then had to speak and filibuster against themselves and against their own amendments. They had to filibuster through the night to make sure that


reporters from the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman were not in the press gallery when those embarrassing debates were to occur.
I know that Labour Members, more than any other hon. Members on the Standing Committee, need the guillotine. From the report I read in The Scotsman I understand that there was an opportunity for the Bill to pass to the Floor of the House on Third Reading and Report without the need for a guillotine. I read in The Scotsman that something like 60 hours had been offered to the Opposition. I do not know whether that is true, but if it is, it was plainly rejected because the Opposition do not want any more debate on the Bill. I certainly understand why.
The guillotine would be doing the Opposition spokesman for Scotland, the hon. Member for Garscadden, who seems to have left the Chamber, a great favour. If the Labour party needs any guidance from English Members looking from the outside at the future of the Labour party, if they ever have a Bill that affects only Scotland they should make sure that one or two Opposition Members on the Committee have been in the House for a little while. Conservative Members will not be treated with contempt. We will not be told that we cannot vote for an amendment or that we are being puerile or facile because we take seriously amendments tabled by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East was running in and out of the Committee all the time. The policeman would shout—this will be the epitaph of the Committee—outside our door, "Division in Room 9." Often the hon. Gentleman would be in the middle of his speech, and we would have to make points of order so that he could nip off and vote. The hon. Member for Garscadden laughs, but he should have been on the Committee and seen the shambles and nonsense being perpetrated by those representing his interests. They did him a grave disservice.

Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the allegation that he had to make a point of order to allow me to vote in Room 9? That never once happened, and if the hon. Member is an honourable Member he will withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Brown: I made a point of order drawing the attention of the Chairman of the Committee to the fact that there was a Division in Room 9 and that the hon. Gentleman was on his feet. I suggested to the Chairman that we might suspend the Committee. The hon. Gentleman seemed quite prepared to nip down the corridor and vote on solely English legislation without having heard a single word of the debate.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend recollect that on one occasion the Committee had to wait a considerable time for the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to return from Committee Room 9—so much so that I raised the matter with Mr. Speaker. I said that I had often served on Committees and wanted the same degree of tolerance.

Mr. Brown: I remember my hon. Friend making that point.
The Bill must be guillotined so that we can have orderly debates in the future without Labour Members moving amendments, suddenly realising that they strengthen the Bill and filibustering so that the press cannot cover theire

mbarrassments. We should be doing the House, and certainly the Labour party, a great favour by passing the motion.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The speech of the hon. Member for 13rigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) confirmed everything that we have always known about him and everything that we have always known about the motivation of the Under—Secretary of State For Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The clear link and alliance between the hon. Member For Stirling and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes confirms everything that my hon. Friends have said about what lies behind this legislation. The only pity is that, because of the antics of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) earlier this afternoon, the Scottish press, about which we have heard much so far, did not hear the contribution that has just been made by one of the English intruders on the Scottish Committee.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend has been an hon. Member longer than me by a week or two. Will he say what the intervention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) achieved? It seemed to me to be a total damp squib.

Mr. Home Robertson: I do not know whether it was a damp squib, but the hon. Member for Govan was on an ego trip. It will ensure that he gets much press coverage, which might irritate the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who are seeing through the rest of the work of the day. His contribution means that the debate on the substance of this guillotine motion is being held late at night, so the press will not hear it and it will not be reported in Scotland. I dare say that that was part of his objective.
The Bill is yet another unwanted and unwarranted intrusion into the Scottish education system. Before an hon. Member points it out, I admit that, in common with the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, I was educated in England. Having endured the English education system, or one aspect of it, I believe that it is doubly important to protect all that is best in the Scottish system.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is wrong. He was educated in England: the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) went to school in England.

Mr. Home Robertson: I shall leave it to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to consider that intervention.
The Government cannot complain about the fact that elected representatives of the Scottish majority are using every means at their disposal to prevent the disruption of our children's education. This matter is far too important to be left to the unfettered malice of the hon. Member for Stirling. That is the only way of describing the legislation. It was not in the Conservative manifesto. I suppose that, by some convoluted logic, the Conservatives could say that, because it was not in their manifesto and because they were resoundingly defeated in Scotland on that manifesto, they were entitled to legislate in that way. That is the way in which those people operate. There can be no justification for this imposition on our people.
Opting out seems to be the Bill's theme. We know that the hon. Member for Stirling has already in a sense opted out with his family. I understand that members of his family are being educated at a private school in my constituency.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As someone who was educated in a private school in England, does the hon. Gentleman take the view that his parents thought that its purpose was to disrupt his education or that it was to obtain it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that relevant?

Mr. Home Robertson: I doubt whether it is relevant to the timetable motion. What I and my constituents hear about most is how my children and my constituents' children will be educated in Scotland. That is the serious issue to which the House should address itself, and which it clearly is not addressing.
Those of us who want the Scottish education system to develop on the well—proven pattern of partnership between teachers, parents and local authorities—and, until comparatively recently, the Scottish Education Department—want that system to continue to flourish. We deplore the fact that the Under—Secretary of State responsible for the Scottish education department seems to be more interested in playing a politically motivated cat—and—mouse game with education in Scotland. His objective appears to be to foster constant friction between parents, the teaching professions and local education authorities. He is trying to foster highly motivated cliques seeking to indulge in prejudices of one kind or another and to impose them on school boards in the opting—out procedure.
If the Bill is another outrageous imposition on our children, the Committee which is supposed to scrutinise it is a travesty, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has confirmed by his intervention. In the last Session the hon. Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) were brought in to top up the Standing Committee on the Bill to regenerate private landlordism in Scotland. The Government amended Standing Orders exactly one year ago tonight to make it possible to pack Scottish Standing Committees with impunity. That is what has happened to this Standing Committee. Significantly—the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) skated over this point—although the Government have been prepared to set up any number of Committees to impose alien legislation on Scotland, the one body which they will not set up and on which the hon. Member for Tayside, North is not prepared to serve is a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to scrutinise the work of the Scottish Office. The Government want it both ways.
The Standing Committee is plainly not composed in a way that is conducive to proper consideration of a Scottish Bill. For a start, the party that got just 24 per cent. of the votes in Scotland—I suspect that it would be below 20 per cent. by now—has about 60 per cent. of the seats on the Committee. Conservative Members are over—represented by a factor of three. They have an overall majority of four in a Committee of 22.
Obviously there are not enough Scottish Tories to man the Committee, so it has been packed with people who would be regarded anywhere in Scotland as complete

aliens. These people are not just Tories; they are hard—line Thatcher freaks. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) is happy to accept that accolade. As well as the hon. Gentleman there are the hon. Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Brigg and Cleethorpes, for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), for Hexham (Mr. Amos) and for Penrith and The Border—six English Tory Members.
Do any of them have children at schools in Scotland? Do any of them have constituents at local authority schools? [Hon. Members: "No, at Fettes."] Fettes, perhaps. We have already established that the Under—Secretary has children at a private school in my constituency, but we shall skate over that. It is a travesty that these people should determine the future of education for my children and those of my hon. Friends. It is highly offensive to the nation of Scotland that a Committee constituted in this way should determine policy on the future of education for our children and exclude those of us with a direct interest in these matters.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Would my hon. Friend believe that, early in the proceedings of the Committee, the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) informed us that his qualification for serving on the Committee was that he was the son of a border farmer's daughter?

Mr. Home Robertson: That sounds rather convoluted. Perhaps it will give the House some idea of the level of debate that took place in Committee. It is self—evident that these people cannot contribute anything significant.
The Committee was not designed to consider a Scottish education Bill. It was deliberately selected to force any measure on to the statute book and to provoke the maximum outrage in the process. Clearly it is succeeding only too well on both counts.
Like a number of my hon. Friends who have spoken I have sat in on some of the debates and watched the work being put in by my hon. Friends who are members of the Standing Committee. I pay tribute to their hard work and dogged determination in the face of provocation of the kind that we have heard tonight. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friends, having endured similar treatment on the poll tax Bill Committee, the Housing (Scotland) Bill Committee and many others.
One of the most sickening aspects of this business is the highly effective management of the news coverage applied by the Scottish Office and its press officers, one of whom—Alex Paget, I think—went on to work as press officer for the Conservative party in Scotland until he recognised that he was on a hiding to nothing and jacked that in, too.
The Conservative party, the Government and Scottish Office civil servants know that they are on impossible ground when it comes to the substance of the Bill, so, in accordance with the worst traditions of opting out in the school playground, they side—step the issues and go for the personalities. As we have heard this evening, their line is that Opposition Members are doing a bad job because they are having no impact on the Bill. How could they have any impact on the Bill when they are outnumbered on the Committee and when the Government have built in a majority of apparatchiks like the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to ensure that anything that they want to


put through goes through on the nod? That is a spurious and unreasonable argument for the Scottish Office press office to advance.
Several Lobby correspondents faithfully churn out the Scottish Office line and produce knocking copy against the majority opposition in Scotland. It is easy for them to do that. I suppose that it is also prudent if they hope to continue to be fed material by the Scottish Office. But at a time of constitutional crisis in Scotland it is incumbent on the Scottish press to reflect its duty to tell the truth and to explain the background to the truth so that people in Scotland know what is going on in this Parliament—how their business is being abused and their education and children are being put in jeopardy by Bills such as this.
Then we have the greatest allies of the Conservative party in Scotland—the Scottish National party. Last Thursday at business questions I referred to the new alliance between the hon. Members for Moray and for Brigg and Cleethorpes—apparently now sealed with a bottle of champagne. If that is disruption of Scottish business and of the Tory minority Government in Scotland, I suspect that the Government will welcome all the disruption that they can possibly get.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak presently. Her hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) detained the House for four hours this afternoon. We have had enough self—indulgence.

Mrs. Ewing: I have no intention of trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is trying to turn a sip into a magnum. No doubt he thinks that the offer of shaving foam to his Friends was just a good clean plot. As he is spending a great deal of time attacking the Committee's work, will he mention why the Government did not require the vote of one English Conservative Member to carry the sittings motion?

Mr. Home Robertson: Not having been a member of the Committee, and not having read that part of the proceedings—I generally find that sittings motion debates are not always the most edifying and informative debates in any case—I will leave it to my hon. Friends to comment on that point.
We know what is going on. The hard Right of the Conservative party would be very happy for Scotland to be out of the Union of the United Kingdom. The SNP is not choosy about its bedfellows. Never let us forget that the Scottish National party, including the hon. Members for Moray and for Angus, East, who were present on that fateful day in the spring of 1979, voted with the Conservatives to bring the Thatcher Government into power and to ensure that a Scottish Assembly could not be set up in that year.
Those of us who want to preserve the Union and to develop Scotland's role of independence in Britain must recognise the dangers in this guillotine motion and all that lies behind it. The Conservative party in Britain, as in Scotland, is not exactly what it used to be. The absence of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan—Smith) is conspicuous. He must find these matters extremely embarrassing. The triumphal sneering

of Scotland's Tory minority, safe as they are behind the Secretary of State's proverbial Gatling gun in the House, know that they can rely on people such as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to see through their legislation, however unpopular it may be in Scotland. They got their people to defend them in the House. That must be a great embarrassment to one—nation Conservatives such as the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside.
The motion is a much greater threat to the Union of the United Kingdom than anything that members of the Scottish National party could do by themselves. The Bill, the grotesquely distorted Committee which is supposed to be considering it, and the guillotine are an intolerable abuse of the nation of Scotland and of our children's education. The House is failing in its duty to protect the interests of the nation of Scotland and properly to scrutinise its legislation. This travesty of a debate underlines the importance of the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which must fill the democratic vacuum which has been left by the present Government. Every vote in the Aye Lobby will be a vote not only against the proper consideration of Scotland's children but, in effect, against the Union.

Mr. Alan Amos: I do not intend to speak for too long. I regret that the guillotine is necessary, but necessary it is. I have now served on several Committees, and I have been amazed and appalled at the deliberate time wasting and sheer ineptitude of Opposition Members in Committee. Much time has been spent on covering up tactical blunders and on personal attacks on Conservative Members of the Committee. I do not mind personal attacks—they are part of the political game—but I object to Opposition Members devoting a great deal of time to such tactics and then complaining about the lack of time to discuss the principles and policies contained in the Bill.
That personal abuse reached its lowest point last week, about five weeks after the Committee had begun its deliberations. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, believe it or not, in a press release of 26 April referred to Conservative Members of the Committee as
a very unpleasant collection of Right—wing, hard—line extremists.
He then spoke about
some of the most offensive members of the Tory party.
[Interruption.] I note the chorus from Labour Members. However, I believe that those statements say more about the hon. Member for Garscadden than about my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Garscadden did not serve on the Committee when he had the opportunity to do so. He fielded the second eleven, when he could have sat on the Committee himself. It is therefore not for him to criticise hon. Members who sat on the Committee and played an active part in its deliberations.
I will not impugn the integrity of Labour Members who served on the Committee. I know all of them; I have worked with them for a few weeks now. I know that they are all sincere people with genuine convictions. I am prepared to leave the matter there.
I made it clear at the beginning of the Committee stage that, as a member of the United Kingdom Parliament, I have the right and the responsibility to speak on any matter that affects the United Kingdom, whatever and


wherever. I will continue to do that, and all hon. Members have the right to do the same. Just as my hon. Friends and I are being criticised for being English Members on a Scottish Bill, so the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) continually rushed out of our Committee to Committee Room 9 to vote on a Bill dealing with English matters. I do not object to that in the slightest, but some would say that he was being inconsistent and illogical. Others would say that it reeked of double standards and hypocrisy.
I wanted to serve on the Committee because the Bill is about education, a subject on which I believe I have some personal direct knowledge and experience. I am not an expert on Scottish education; I have never claimed to be and I may never be. In any case, beware of the so—called experts on any matter. It is amazing how many experts suddenly appear. However, I have always been willing to listen, learn and debate, and that is what these Committees provide the opportunity to do. It is not desirable to put on them self—appointed experts who know all the answers before the consideration of matters has even begun.
I support the guillotine motion because I believe that there has been ample opportunity to discuss all the clauses before us. Too much time has been wasted by an Opposition trying to cover up their frequent tactical blunders. So many of the amendments would, had they been carried, have achieved precisely the opposite effect of that intended to be achieved. For example, there was the provision of a mechanism to trigger a ballot on whether a school could become self—governing. There was confusion about whether 10 per cent. referred to parents or pupils. Another example was the case of a ballot needed to change the character of a school. Amendments were designed to make it more difficult. Had these amendments been passed, they would have removed any need for any ballot at all. What the Opposition did was appalling and disgraceful. Once is a mistake, twice is incompetence, and three times is a foul—up.
The Opposition has had no clear overall strategy. They have been flailing about blindly from one defective amendment to another, and this has taken up the time of the Committee. They should act on their own ideas and not as the mouthpiece for every pressure group and interest group to which the Labour party seems to feel beholden. Had they done that, they would not have made these mistakes.
Another matter is the allegation that Conservative members are trying to impose English ideas on an alien Scotland. I reject this word "alien". We are one small country, yet we hear these awful terms "alien" and "foreign". We are one country and that is how we will remain, whatever Opposition Members say. They do not believe their own rhetoric.
There is a belief that we are imposing English ideas on Scotland, but it is significant that the Opposition have constantly tried to make the Bill conform more closely to the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988, which covers England and Wales. Those are double standards.
The Opposition have been too confused. They should have directed and focused their attack. They should not have wasted so much time on irrelevant technical amendments. On that basis, I am almost minded to oppose the guillotine motion—[HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."]

Opposition Members should not build up their hopes. Clearly, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is suffering again from the virtues for which he is renowned. —over—generosity and compassion towards the Opposition—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time) Motion, the Companies Bill [Lords] and the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Air Dorrell.]

Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Amos: It is not often that I am interrupted by the Prime Minister, in whose name the Business Motion stands.
By moving this timetable motion, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is allowing the Opposition to get themselves off the hook of more incompetence and more embarrassment. So much for the Opposition's promised unremitting attack on the Bill. Perhaps it will materialise next week before consideration of the Bill is completed. We look forward to that.
The Bill is essentially about education. It deals with the same concepts as those in the Education Reform Act, except that the terminology of this Scottish Bill is better. The phrase "self—governing schools" is a more accurate description than "opting—out schools" because the schools will not be opting out of state control. Indeed, they will not be opting out of anything unless the parents vote for it in two ballots, and opting out can then take place only if the Secretary of State confirms that decision.
The Bill is about a permissive power. The philosophy of the Conservative party is that people are free, that people should be free to do what they want within reason and that it is up to the state to justify why that freedom should be curtailed. The near—hysterical reaction by the Labour party and the original disruption by certain Scottish National Members showed what they really fear—parental choice. They do not trust parents to come to sensible decisions for their own school, their own children and their own community. If they trusted parents, Opposition Members would not object to them having the opportunity of a ballot. They do not trust parents even with the safeguard of the second ballot and confirmation of the Secretary of State. That hysteria springs from the Opposition's realisation that the concept of schools becoming self—governing will prove popular. If they believed in their own rhetoric and that the idea will never catch on in Scotland, why have they opposed it with such vehemence?
On the question of a change of character for a school—a power that already exists, except that no ballot is needed for it—why should parents not have that right? Comprehensivisation is not the last word in education and never will be. The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to this point and I repeat: if parents want to choose selection on academic grounds, I say that we should let them. We should break down the barriers between the second—rate inner—city comprehensives and the nice


middle—class suburban comprehensives. Let us have social mixing based on merit and let us not prevent it by selection based on parental wealth or simply on where people happen to live. We have selection at the moment, but it is selection by stealth. Let us have selection in the open and on merit. The present comprehensive system of selection by stealth is wrong.
In conclusion, I believe firmly that the Bill is about choice, responsibility, diversity and freedom. It is not so much about schools opting out of an education authority's control, but rather about opting in to a new era of opportunity and diversity in the state sector. The question which the Opposition must face and not duck is not how they can prevent schools from becoming self—governing, rather why are schools so dissatisfied with education authority control that they want to become self—governing.
Let us grasp the challenge of change and the opportunity to extend responsibility. The Bill has nothing to do with market forces, rather the conscious, rational and democratic decision of parents and local communities to have a greater say in the future of their children.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I will not follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) in going through his reasons for supporting the Bill. It strikes me as strange that any Conservative Members who are serving on the Committee should support the guillotine motion: they seem to have enjoyed the Committee so much that they might want it to continue ad infinitum. They seem to have had an enjoyable time, but whether they have advanced the thinking on Scottish education is another matter.
On Second Reading, I remember crossing the Chamber to have a word with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—perhaps one should not do that. I said to him in friendly terms, which was stretching my tolerance quite a bit, that the trouble with him was that he actually believed that the Bill would make a great change to Scottish education. He has all the beliefs of the zealot. He did not argue with me. I also said that little of our legislation on education will alter children. At the centre of anything that we do about education, we must consider the children.
I want to consider the process of legislation in this House. I hope that I carry the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) with me, as I believe that, in a previous incarnation, he was something of a management consultant. If we were to look to our proceedings in managerial terms, does he believe in all honesty that anyone would support the way in which we deal with legislation? Here we are in the Mother of Parliaments in the closing years of the 20th century carrying on in an adversarial manner over something that affects the fundamentals of human life—how one educates a human being. We are considering the education of nursery school children as well as those aged five and over.
We have heard stories of how Opposition Members—who do not have the advice from people in the Box—have had to rely, rightly or wrongly, on information from pressure groups outside the House. In other systems of government, pressure groups are invited to the legislature and are party to what is tantamount to a Select Committee stage. Things are done in the open. The difference here is that the only pressure groups that have had anything to do with the formulation of the Bill are those that adhere to

Tory party philosophy. No other pressure group in Scotland, whether it is the Educational Institute of Scotland, the experts in education, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association or those dealing with the sensitive issue of special needs education, have had any say in the formulation of the Bill.
To use a Shanklyism: "I left school at 14; I never had much education; I had to use my brains." I am always sensitive about the educational process and I carefully guard how we change that process. In Scotland, rather vaingloriously, we prize what we do in education. I believe that we exaggerate our competence. We may have been extremely good in the past, but in international terms I doubt whether we will be as good in the 1990s as we were in the 1890s. That is another matter. We are altering the basis of education by a Bill that is adversarial. We cannot gainsay that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman is complaining that the measure has been formulated only inside the Conservative party and by Conservative party pressure groups, how does he account for the fact that the leader of Strathclyde regional council, Charles Gray, said that he had dreamed up these proposals five years ago?

Mr. Douglas: I will bear many burdens in my political life, but the opinions of Mr. Charles Gray are not a burden that I will bear this evening.
I do not know who has been caught out. I accept that there may be support for the Bill in Scotland. What I am talking about is the fact that the Government are trying to impose a timetable on the Bill. I have been around long enough in the parliamentary process to know that Governments win. I am complaining that we have become a legislative sausage machine.
When I show parties of schoolchildren through the House, I show them the volumes of Acts that have been passed by Parliament. If I take out an edition from the 1930s, it is a slim volume; I know that there have been amendments to much of that legislation. When we get to the 1970s and the 1980s, there are numerous volumes. So we have become a legislative sausage machine. It is impossible for any hon. Member to have a comprehensive knowledge of the technical aspects of all legislation, particularly education measures.
We try to kid the electorate that we are experts and are competent on a range of legislation. That is not true. 'We cannot produce good legislation by the present process. The imposition of a timetable motion to back up the adversarial process is guaranteed to produce bad legislation, whatever Government are in power. We have to find different means of producing legislation. We have them, but the only occasion that I was involved in the Committee stage of a Bill when we started off with the Select Committee procedure was when we dealt with a measure on deep ocean mining. We had all the experts before the Select Committee. I am not saying that I agreed with the legislation, but technically it bears examination.
Putting aside the legislative process, I shall deal with the social philosophy underlying the Bill. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is not here at the moment, The Government can claim that, if it is possible to have self—governing schools, people will avail themselves of the


opportunity in the Bill to do so. Whether it is Paisley grammar school or another school that is under threat, someone will make use of the option.
As soon as a school—perhaps in Fife, although I hope not—is under threat of closure, a group of parents will form a pressure group. They will look for the medium—term advantage to be gained by coming out of the system. The result will not necessarily be chaotic or totally disruptive, but there will be an emulative effect related to snobbery. There can be no gainsaying that. I have nothing against Paisley grammar school, but the whole process will lead to people wanting their children to go to a school that is "better".
In Scotland we have historically gone against that. Rightly or wrongly, people in England have been for it. They have had a tradition of grammar schools, but our tradition has been basically comprehensive. The Under—Secretary of State for Scotland, who went to school in Arbroath, knows that—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) wants to go back to Burns's time. If we go back, we shall find that the farmers gathered together and put their pennies in to create a school. We have evolved from that system and said that the best and most equitable way to provide education is for state and local authorities together to finance it, to remove the concept of snobbery, which the Bill is designed to introduce.
The Bill is designed to be socially disruptive, not only to the educational system, but, fundamentally, to the democratic views held in Scotland. If the English want their educational system, that is fine. However, the Scots have historically related their educational system to their view of democracy.
The Scottish educational system, which comes from the Church, is a democratic one. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) asked about Scottish history. Anybody who knows anything about Scottish history knows that the Scots' views on democracy spring from, and are interrelated with, our educational system. That is what the Government do not like.
The person whose 10—year stay in power some people will celebrate tomorrow does not like or understand the fact that she is not liked in Scotland, and she does not like Scotland. The primary reason for that is the basic difference between her concept of democracy and that of the Scottish people. The Prime Minister has a Socratic, Platonic view of who should govern, which is that he or she who knows, should govern. I shall not return to basic philosophy but she thinks that she knows what is best. However, the Scots fundamentally reject that concept and believe that the individual knows what is best.
The Scottish school system promotes that concept. That is why, if a disruptive element is introduced, it will destroy and undermine the social cohesion that we have in Scotland. That is why I am against this measure on educational, egalitarian and social grounds. It is not that I think that everything in the Scottish education system is perfect, but if we are to alter that system, we must listen openly, not covertly, to the people engaged in Scottish education today. We must listen to their views and try to determine what type of education will benefit the democratic and social cohesion of Scotland after 2000 AD.
The young people who will be involved in the education process are not merely those who will be affected in 1990, when the provisions of the Act come into force. They are the ones who will produce the type of society that, industrially, commercially and above all socially, we want after the year 2000.
This is not the way to deal with social and educational legislation. It is an insult—not just to the people of Scotland, but to the democratic parliamentary process—to deal with a social measure in this way. If the Government want to have timetables and if it is essential to them to have benchmarks and to pass legislation, we should look for a newer and better approach to this type of legislation and to open it up, initially, to Select Committee procedure.
Some people have talked about imperilling the Union, and some hon. Members have said that we are a unitary Parliament. I accept the strictures of that argument, but we are not a unitary Parliament. People in Northern Ireland have, and have had to have, a different view, and there has been great pressure for devolution there. There were many difficulties about Stormont, and I said to the then Prime Minister, "If you abolish Stormont, you will spend the rest of your time trying to recreate it."
I say to the House, rather obtusely, that if the Government continue to treat Scottish legislation in this way, they will be the disruptors of the Union: they will produce the friction. Scotland is not like Northern Ireland; with respect to my Welsh colleagues, it is not even like Wales. Scotland is a nation, and the Government are imperilling the social cohesion of that nation. If they continue to do so they will also imperil the Union. Scotland will gang its ane gae, and the Government of this day will bear the responsibility.

Mr. Michael Irvine: When earlier this evening the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said that all six members of the Committee who represented English constituencies would be regarded as aliens anywhere in Scotland, he was not only being offensive; he was being inaccurate. Some of us are of good Scottish stock and proud of it.
After the selection of Committee members had been announced, an article appeared in one of the less reputable Scottish newspapers saying that the Committee had been packed with six English bovver boys. I had my aunt on the telephone from Edinburgh: that good lady did not give a damn about my being described as a bovver boy, but was outraged that I had been described as an Englishman. Hon. Members such as the hon. Member for East Lothian who dismiss us so lightly and offensively should think again. It is, I think, quite noteworthy that even the Glasgow Herald was constrained not long ago to pay tribute to the assiduity of English Members' attendance in Committee, and the force with which we had put our arguments.

Mr. Dobson: "Asinine" was the word.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has just made a remark. He has not been a member of the Committee as we have; he has not been reading the Glasgow Herald as we have. Whatever our views on the constitutional question, what the Glasgow Herald actually said—I am being entirely fair to it—was that the English Committee members turned up and


argued their case, and there had been no criticism from the other side of the work that they had put into the Committee or of the care and diligence that they had devoted to the Bill.

Mr. Irvine: I accept and adopt those sentiments.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has had rather a rough time in the debate. He started the Committee very well: his performance on the sittings motion was well up to standard. Things went wrong later, part of the reason being simply that in this Committee the Government case has been argued exceptionally effectively. It has not been one of those Committees in which Members on one side sit down and get on with their correspondence: quite the reverse. Debates have been very effective, and all Members on both sides have joined in with a will.
I think that that came as a surprise to Opposition Members on the Committee; it certainly came as a surprise to the hon. Member for Fife, Central, and I think that that was what threw him. He had expected to spend the entire time haranguing the Government and attacking the Bill. Suddenly he found that his own policies and arguments were coming under detailed scrutiny, and their weaknesses were being exposed. Suddenly he realised that the Bill was not imposing anything on Scottish parents; on the contrary, it was giving them greater choice. If they do not want to exercise that choice, that is a matter for them. They do not have to choose to opt out.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central had a difficult time. He had a particularly embarrassing time when we were debating amendment No. 40. He actually threatened to vote against his own amendment. Opposition Members have said hard things about the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), but he kindly and courteously intervened and guided the hon. Member for Fife, Central away from potential embarrassment. His threat was not carried out.
As all the Committee members will know, it was Strathclyde regional council, and in particular its leader Mr. Charles Gray, which eventually did for the hon. Member for Fife, Central. During the course of the Committee, we all came to describe Mr. Gray affectionately as Sir Charles Gray. Quite possibly one day he will reap his reward for the very convincing way in which he demolished the hon. Member for Fife, Central.
There was certainly filibustering in the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has referred to the strange occasion when the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Madonald) stopped in mid-sentence. I do not want to say anything against the hon. Member for Western Isles or cause him undue embarrassment, because some of his contributions were very effective. However, Hansard records that he had been called to order on eight separate occasions within 10 minutes for wandering away from the point. After being called to order eight times, the hon. Member for Western Isles stopped at the end of his sentence and remained standing. This has been mentioned before, but I cannot refrain from repeating what happened; it deserves recapitulation. The Chairman said:
Order. Let us be clear. The hon. Member must not stand without speaking, because it cannot be recorded in Hansard. It cannot be said that during the day the hon. Member has shown a lack of words, but. if he has now run out of words, we may make progress."[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 21 March 1989; c. 250.]

That gives the House some of the flavour of what has been happening in Committee.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) represents the other extreme. Reference has been made to his behaviour. He never runs short of words. They pour out like a great Highland waterfall, whatever the hour of day or night. He rants. We heard a prize rant the other evening when he went on about political extremists and ideologies. A crazed look entered his eyes. He began to talk about the full moon and fangs growing. I think he had my hon Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in mind. Again that gives the House the flavour of what has been happening in Committee.
Most offensively of all, the hon. Member for Dundee, East ran down the Corridor to Committee Room 9 to vote in the Committee on the Local Government and Housing Bill which is concerned entirely with English legislation. Unlike the English members of the Committee on the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill, he did not have the courtesy to continue to participate in debate.
Opposition Members must be rescued from themselves. The guillotine is a kindness to them. The sooner it is introduced, the better for them and for us.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Several times this evening it has been said that a number of alien figures far removed from mainstream Scottish life were on the Committee. After the last speech, that point is not one that I need labour.
I congratulate my hon. Friends on their hard stint on the Committee. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). But I include in my thanks all Labour members of that Committee, who tolerated a great deal of provocation, operated in very difficult circumstances, and stuck to the arguments extremely effectively. It was hard pounding, but my hon. Friends did their job, and they wish to continue doing so.
Our basic complaint is that the guillotine will crush into the straitjacket of a timetable a very large number of important points concerning the future of Scottish education. They include the future of further education, testing in primary schools, the establishment of technology academies, the appraisal and dismissal of teachers, and even the office of lord rector and its position in our universities.
Debate on all those matters will be compressed into a short time with only one pause for breath—when, very conveniently if somewhat illogically, the Committee will not sit on a certain Thursday simply because the Conservative party conference in Scotland is being held that day. We are entitled to protest about that, and we certainly do so.
Right hon. and hon. Members listening to the debate may have grasped the fact that this is an unusual Bill. It is unusual because it deals with a highly controversial remodelling of Scottish education, and makes a central attack on the basis of our school system, for good or ill, that came upon us totally unexpectedly. I accept that it was one of the very few occasions when the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was out of step and doing his own thing in the Scottish. Conservative party.
During the last general election, I clearly remember that, when the news came through about schools in


England opting out, the chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland, Lord Goold, and the junior Minister at the Scottish Office hurried to put out a statement reassuring Scottish public opinion that there was no question of opting out being introduced in Scotland. It was not a question of the Conservative manifesto being silent on the subject but of a specific assurance from the Conservative hierarchy that Scotland did not need to worry because opting out would not happen there. For that reason alone we are entitled to take a serious view of what has happened since.
I recognise that, because of the Conservatives' weakness in Scotland as a result of the electoral disaster that overcame them there, the Government were unable to mart the Scottish Standing Committee in the normal fashion and in the way that we have come to understand and expect. One might have expected the Government to handle that situation with a little delicacy and tact. I cannot prove this, but my opinion—it is shared seriously by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends—is that, for perverse reasons, the Minister set out to pick a task force to ram the Bill through in the most offensive and abrasive manner he could possibly manage.
The Government put together—I use the term again —an offensive collection of English Back Benchers, many of whom are connected with the No Turning Back group. That group would be the first to admit that it is an extreme Right-wing group within the Tory party—[Laughter.] Well, I had the misfortune to read one or two of its pamphlets, and the rather silly laughter from the Conservative Benches does nothing to destroy the weight of the point that I make.
I pay a compliment to Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). That hon. Gentleman came to the Committee with a well-deserved reputation for being offensive, and he lived up to it. He is, if I may say so, the parliamentary equivalent of a walking breach of the peace. [Laughter.] We can laugh about it, and I invite laughter at this stage—but I am making a serious point at the same time. I do not like that combination.
I have not sat through the entire Committee proceedings, although I have dipped into the Committee stage. It became clear that many hon. Members on the Committee were treating it as if it were a public school jape in which points had to be scored. If they could irritate, that was a victory, and if they could reduce the Opposition to fury, that was a major triumph. That is hardly the way in which to conduct a serious debate about Scottish education. Much of the debate was conducted on the basis of total ignorance.
I read in the Committee Hansard that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) referred to the "qualy". Anyone of my age group who has been to school in Scotland, or anyone who takes an interest in Scottish education knows what the "qualy" is, but it was greeted with cries of, "What's that?" from English Conservative Members. It was clear from one of the speeches about Roman Catholic education in Scotland that an English member of the Committee did not understand that Roman Catholic schools were part of the state system. He did not understand the fundamental basics of the Scottish education system, yet he was

clowning, cavorting, criticising and ramming down our throats his particular prejudices as though it were a virility symbol to do so.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman referred to his hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), but in col. 381 his hon. Friend referred to religious education as the teaching of witchcraft. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?

Mr. Dewar: There is some dispute about that. However, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) may object to remarks from the Opposition as being wrong. At least Opposition Members knew about Scottish education, which is more than can be said of some of the imported forced labour serving on that Committee.
To take an example of the way in which the Committee proceedings were conducted, I draw attention to a speech by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. Perhaps I should make it clear that he is referring to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), as it is such an unlikely passage.
My task"—
said the hon. Gentleman modestly—
in the Committee is to ensure that there is no backsliding. Opposition Members do not understand how meek, mild and reasonable my hon. Friend the Minister is.
That certainly says something about the hon. Gentleman's ideological position. He went on:
To ensure that there is no backsliding, it is essential that he has strong men behind him. It is an excellent Bill, but my hon. Friend the Minister has a reputation for conceding amendments to the Opposition."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 16 March 1989; c. 17.]
We can take that at two levels: if we accept it as a serious comment, it is simply alarming—or we can take it as an asinine display of stupidity. I leave the House to decide which is more plausible.
Of course the Committee has ended up in trench warfare. I regret that, but I do not believe that it is our fault. The first day on which the Committee sat—excluding the day of the disruption—we did not start at 10·30 am and sit until 1 o'clock. We had a sittings motion that took us into the depths of the night, and we sat until after 11 pm on the first day.
In my 15 years in the House—no one could say that I did not serve my time in Scottish Committees—I cannot remember such a timetable motion. Clearly it was designed and tabled with the intention of bulldozing the measure through with absolutely no concern or consideration for Scottish opinion.
Great play has been made of the fact that an amendment was tabled which would have had an unintended consequence. When that was recognised, the amendment was withdrawn. A mistake was made in an amendment and an attempt was made to withdraw it. What I find significant is not that in all those hours a mistake was made by the Opposition—it would be remarkable if no mistakes were made—but that when attempts were made to withdraw the amendment, attempts were made, clearly out of spite, to retain it in the debate and the Minister adopted it into the Bill, presumably because he saw it as a chance to claim a victory and embarrass our side of the Committee, although he clearly did not think that there was any educational case for it, as it was not in the Bill originally. It is such frivolous matters that are so offensive.
The Bill has been an unpleasant business. What has happened has not reflected any credit on the Minister, his colleagues and, ultimately, the House. This abrasive approach to Scottish business and insensitive conduct will breed cynicism and a certain disenchantment with the democratic process. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos), who had a well-written speech, spoke of our hysterical over-reaction to the Bill, which showed that he does not understand what Scottish education feels about this measure. It no doubt looks like hysterical over-reaction from his point of view and that of his English constituents, but in Scotland there is deep opposition to, and deep distrust and deep dislike of this measure. It is genuinely seen as a root-and-branch attack that cannot be justified. The way in which the Bill has been handled and rammed through in Committeee has added to the disillusionment and anger about what is happening in this country.
The Bill will damage confidence not only in the Government—there is little enough confidence to damage —but in the system. I take no pleasure from that and I do not like it. If this is to be the model of what is to come from the Secretary of State, I strongly advise him, for the sake of all of us, to have second thoughts.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): In the 15 years that I have had the privilege of serving in the House, this has been the most extraordinary debate on a timetable motion that I have experienced. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) told the House that the Opposition are using every means at their disposal to resist the Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) told us that this is one of the most detested Bills that he has experienced. He criticised my hon. Friends from English constituencies for the many hours of hard work that they put in on the Committee. He did not inform the House—and if his protestations are to have the slightest merit, he should have done so—that he did not serve on the Committee. Why, on a Committee on which the Secretary of Scotland was serving with other hon. Members—

Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a virtue out of his own necessity. He was on the Committee as a vote and a placeman, but he took no part in its proceedings.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman cannot avoid the fact that I played a considerably greater part than he did. He seeks, with synthetic fury, to suggest that the Opposition —[Interruption.]
The debate has been consistent with the principle of the dog that did not bark in the night. We did not hear the normal references to the Government trying to stifle debate. The hon. Member for Garscadden could hardly accuse the Government of trying to stifle debate when last night part I, which deals with opting out, was completed before the motion came before the House. All the clauses dealing with self-governing schools have been fully debated and are not affected by the motion.
Furthermore, we did not hear, because we could not hear, that the Bill is being rushed through—for the simple reason that, before the Committee stage began, the Opposition said that they would like between 120 and 130 hours to consider it. How much time will we have as a

result of the motion? Some 156 hours will be spent considering it, which is more than the Opposition asked for. The Government have responded to the Committee by agreeing to amendments and making concessions as a result of the arguments that have been used. No fewer than eight amendments have been accepted, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has agreed to consider 25 issues raised by the Opposition and Government Back Benchers.
If the House or the Opposition do not believe my comments about the way in which the Opposition have handled the debate, they should consider the views of an organisation that is not entirely friendly to the Government—the Forum on Scottish Education. I should inform the House of its members so as to establish their credentials for saying how the Opposition have handled this matter. Its members include not only the Church of Scotland education committee but the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the National Union of Students, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Association of University Teachers. In a statement published on 2 May and embargoed until 4 May—today—the Forum on Scottish Education says:
The Forum on Scottish Education…has unanimously condemned time wasting by MPs who are members of the Standing Committee considering the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to break the embargo on that statement and to read it out the day before?

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that it was embargoed until 1 o'clock on Thursday 4 May and it is now 10.45 pm. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even the Secretary of State must take responsibility for what he says.

Mr. Rifkind: If the Forum on Scottish Education is good enough to send me a copy, I am entitled to refer to it. The forum says that it
has unanimously condemned time wasting by MPs who are members of the Standing Committee considering the Self-Governing Schools etc (Scotland) Bill.
The Rev. Dr. J. Ian McDonald, Chairman of the Forum, said in Edinburgh that despite over 100 hours of debate at twenty-one sittings of the Committee, only Clause 29 had been reached.
Since then we have gone a little further.
The statement quotes Dr. McDonald:
'The Forum thinks that it is particularly deplorable that the concept of 'prime time', that is of debates taking place at a time which will ensure maximum media coverage, has been used tactically…in order to delay the consideration of important Clauses. The Forum calls on all Members serving on the Committee to drop disruptive and time wasting tactics and to make the best possible use of the time which remains for giving serious consideration to the remaining Clauses.'
That was a statement by the Forum on Scottish Education, which includes the EIS, STUC and COSLA. If that is the forum's judgment on the Opposition, it makes the remarks of the leader of the Labour group on Strathclyde regional council positively helpful in comparison.

Mr. Dewar: I have not had the advantage of reading this embargoed statement as yet, but I did not notice in it any words that condemn the Opposition specifically. It


was a comment on the Committee as a whole. [Interruption.] Having read the record of a number of the Committee's sittings and having sat through several hours of its debates, it seems to me that the Secretary of State is, on behalf of his colleagues, going for an exercise in self-criticism.

Mr. Rifkind: The argument that the Government have an interest in prolonging debate on one of their own Bills —[Interruption.] That may be what the hon. Gentleman likes to suggest, but it is obvious who is condemned in the statement, to the Opposition's shame.
The Bill does not impose a single obligation on anyone in Scotland. It provides opportunities for those parents who wish to exercise them, and it is that freedom that Her Majesty's Opposition have always been adamant in resisting. They believe that they know better than the people and parents of Scotland what is appropriate for Scottish education, yet if they knew Scottish education as well as they claim, they would know that the right of local communities to control their school structure is among the finest traditions of Scottish education.
This is a guillotine motion, but it is probably the first guillotine in the history of the House that is being used for the purposes of mercy killing. It is because the Opposition are anxious to be spared the interminable embarrassment that they have experienced because of the superb way in which my hon. Friends who have served on the Committee have fulfilled their responsibilities. It is very much on that basis that I have no hesitation in commending the motion to the House.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills).

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 135.

Division No. 185]
[10.49 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert
Couchman, James


Amos, Alan
Cran, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Srr Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dover, Den


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp;Cl't's)
Durant, Tony


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Dykes, Hugh


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Eggar, Tim


Buck, Sir Antony
Emery, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Evennett, David


Burt, Alistair
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Butler, Chris
Fallon, Michael


Butterfill, John
Favell, Tony


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forman, Nigel


Carrington, Matthew
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carttiss, Michael
Forth, Eric


Cash, William
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Fox, Sir Marcus


Chope, Christopher
Freeman, Roger


Churchill, Mr
French, Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gale, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Gardiner, George


Colvin, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Conway, Derek
Gill, Christopher


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles





Gow, Ian
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Neale, Gerrard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Ground, Patrick
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Paice, James


Hague, William
Pawsey, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hanley, Jeremy
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hannam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Raffan, Keith


Harris, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Haselhurst, Alan
Rathbone, Tim


Hawkins, Christopher
Redwood, John


Hayes, Jerry
Renton, Tim


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Riddick, Graham


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hind, Kenneth
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Howard, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp;B'wd)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Sims, Roger


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Speller, Tony


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Irvine, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jack, Michael
Squire, Robin


Janman, Tim
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jessel, Toby
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Steen, Anthony


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stern, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knapman, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Knox, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lang, Ian
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Thurnham, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lightbown, David
Tracey, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Mac Kay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Maclean, David
Waller, Gary


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Ward, John


Madel, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mans, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Maples, John
Watts, John


Marland, Paul
Wells, Bowen


Marlow, Tony
Wheeler, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Widdecombe, Ann


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mates, Michael
Wilshire, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Mellor, David
Wood, Timothy


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Miller, Sir Hal



Mills, Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Sir David
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory


Monro, Sir Hector
and Mr. Tom Sackville.






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Anderson, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ingram, Adam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Barron, Kevin
Kennedy, Charles


Beckett, Margaret
Kirkwood, Archy


Beggs, Roy
Lambie, David


Beith, A. J.
Lamond, James


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Bermingham, Gerald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bidwell, Sydney
McAllion, John


Bradley, Keith
McAvoy, Thomas


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McKelvey, William


Buckley, George J.
McLeish, Henry


Caborn, Richard
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McWilliam, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Madden, Max


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clay, Bob
Marek, Dr John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Maxton, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Meacher, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cousins, Jim
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp;Bute)


Cox, Tom
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Crowther, Stan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dalyell, Tam
Mowlam, Marjorie


Darling, Alistair
Mullin, Chris


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Nellist, Dave


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dewar, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dixon, Don
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dobson, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Doran, Frank
Pike, Peter L.


Douglas, Dick
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Prescott, John


Eadie, Alexander
Quin, Ms Joyce


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Richardson, Jo


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Robertson, George


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Fisher, Mark
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Flannery, Martin
Sedgemore, Brian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Foster, Derek
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foulkes, George
Sillars, Jim


Fraser, John
Skinner, Dennis


Fyfe, Maria
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp;F'bury)


Galbraith, Sam
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Snape, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Soley, Clive


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin
Strang, Gavin


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Gould, Bryan
Wall, Pat


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wallace, James


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wilson, Brian


Haynes, Frank
Winnick, David


Henderson, Doug
Worthington, Tony


Hinchliffe, David
Wray, Jimmy


Home Robertson, John



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved.
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee
1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 18th May 1989.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 18th May may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 19th May 1989.

Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusions of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time
7.—(1) On the allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to said period of two hours.
(3) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion.

Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for


consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed by the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) and other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee as the time at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation
13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Companies Bill (Lords)

Order for Second Reading read.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the House will understand if I speak crisply and do not say too much by way of history or generalisation. This is a significant Bill of 167 clauses, much of it the product of extensive public consultation and detailed discussion in many quarters. Its essential purpose is to bring company law up to date, to reflect changes or prospective changes in the business environment—for example, the development of the European single market; to implement changes in policy, for example, those directed to reduce unnecessary burdens on business and to deal with problems that experience has revealed in the existing provisions—for example, to make changes to the rules for disclosures of interest in shares and to refine and strengthen the powers to investigate companies.
In view of the terms of the Opposition's motion, it is most emphatically not the present Government's view that the law should contain blueprints for the internal management of companies in matters where the general public is not at risk. The Opposition's motion refers to participation by employees. Not only do we have nothing against worker involvement, but we have accepted into the Bill new provisions to make it easier to set up partnership companies and employee share schemes. However, I should make it clear that we are not inclined towards the imposition of particular models of employee participation or involvement by compulsion through the law.
The overall purpose of the Bill is to provide, in today's circumstances, a system of company law that meets the needs of enterprise, not least in ensuring open markets, while at the same time giving clear safeguards for those who invest in companies or do business with them.
I turn now in more detail to the individual parts of the Bill. Part I is concerned with the production of company accounts, obviously a pillar of company law. The Bill implements the seventh European directive, which deals with group accounts. It requires all groups in Europe above a certain size to prepare consolidated accounts on a defined basis.
The Bill will require better information to be given on the effect of acquisitions on the position of a group. While not specifically required by the directive, this is a feature that we have introduced in response to widespread concern at the confusing, and arguably misleading, ways in which some companies deal with acquisitions at present.
The Bill also gives effect to a decision announced last year to allow listed companies to provide their members with summary financial information rather than full accounts, unless the members indicate that they want to receive the full accounts. This is intended to help shareholders generally to have key information in an accessible form, but I emphasise that any member who wishes will still be able to receive the full accounts free of charge.
Clause 19 introduces a new definition of a subsidiary undertaking which is wider than the existing definition in the Companies Act 1985 and introduces tests based on control and dominant influence, to replace the existing test based simply on holding a majority of equity share capital. We are widening the definition in this way to bring many of the so-called "off-balance sheet vehicles" back within the consolidation. Off-balance sheet vehicles are an artificial device, typically controlled by the parent but kept outside the letter of the existing definition of a subsidiary. Their increasingly widespread use could undermine the value of consolidated accounts. We intend to curb their abuse.
Having made those points, I should emphasise that, as under the present law, the general requirement of accounts to give a true and fair view of a company's affairs will remain paramount. In any conflict with the detailed rules, that provision will override. It is important that that should be understood.
Before leaving part I, I remind the House of the announcement last week of the Government's decision to bring forward legislation relating to the Dearing report on setting and enforcing accounting standards. That will be done by introducing amendments part I in Committee.
I turn now to part II which deals with the regulation of auditors of company accounts—

Mr. David Winnick: To satisfy our curiosity, before the Minister goes any further will he tell us whether it is the intention of the Government to keep in the Bill the amendment that was passed in another place on political donations?

Mr. Newton: I shall comment on that later in my speech.

Mr. Winnick: When?

Mr. Newton: I now turn briefly to part II which deals with the regulation of auditors of company accounts. It too derives from a European directive which requires us to give statutory force to rules which previously were set and administered by professional accounting bodies on their own behalf. We have sought to achieve this without erecting an unnecessarily burdensome or expensive regulatory system as it is right to acknowledge that we have no general sense of dissatisfaction with the quality or conduct of firms and individuals carrying out company audits or of the professional bodies which regulate them.
Part III of the Bill implements the measures my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in May last year following a review of investigation powers and procedures. The measures amend and extend provisions relating to investigations under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, the Companies Act 1985, the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Financial Services Act 1986.
Two of the measures recommended following that review which did not require legislation have already been put into practice with good effect. The main investigation and enforcement activities of the Department have been brought together in a new investigations division. This, together with an increase in resources allocated to investigations, has already led to investigations being concluded in a much shorter time, despite an increase in the overall number of inquiries. Inquiries begun in 1984


took an average of three years five months to complete; inquiries begun in 1987 and completed have so far taken an average of 18 months.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am sure that we are all pleased that inquiries are taking a shorter time to complete. Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned that it is necessary to introduce part III, which gives greater powers to investigate companies? Are those powers necessary because the enterprise culture, so much supported by the Government, is a corrupt culture?

Mr. Newton: No. The provisions in the Bill seek to support the changes that we have already introduced, to which I have just referred, in three main ways—by adjusting or extending the circumstances in which inspectors may be appointed and in which such appointments may be directed or terminated; by simplifying or enhancing powers to obtain and disclose information; and by enabling us to investigate on behalf of overseas regulators.
Clauses 76 and 77 would empower the Secretary of State to require the provision of information, the production of documents, or other assistance for the purpose of assisting an overseas regulatory authority in the exercise of its regulatory functions. Those powers are broadly similar in scope to domestic investigation powers and are subject to certain safeguards.
Part IV of the Bill concerns the registration of charges on companies—for example, in connection with loans. The overall aim is to provide a better register that will be of assistance to those offering advice to companies and it will reduce costs at Companies house, which will be to the benefit of those who pay for its services.
A second deregulatory element in part V of the Bill is the provision which permits the shareholders of private companies by unanimous vote to dispense with certain specific provisions of company law designed for their own —I emphasise "their own"—protection. Part V also implements some new proposals enabling a wider range of financial assistance to be given by companies to support employee share schemes and to facilitate the setting up of partnership companies. I mention those proposals as I know that they will be welcomed by the Opposition.
Among the other features of part V, I will confine myself to mention clause 108 only, which tightens the rules in the Companies Act 1985 for the disclosure of interests in shares. This clause implements proposals that were announced in 1987 following the review of takeovers. In our view, a greater degree of disclosure is needed to protect the interests of shareholders, especially in the run-up to a possible takeover bid. That brings me naturally to part VI of the Bill that concerns mergers and related matters. One provision I should mention is the new voluntary pre-notification system that will offer bidders a formal procedure for clearing merger proposals in advance, with a timetable for a decision. Provided that they give the Office of Fair Trading certain information, and meet the other conditions, they will receive automatic clearance within four weeks, unless they hear to the contrary.
That should cover the vast majority of simple cases which raise no competition or other concerns. Where cases

raise problems or are more complex, there will be powers to seek further information and if necessary extend the period for consideration.
Even where mergers raise competition problems, they can sometimes be resolved quite easily by selling off part of the merged business. That occasionally happens now, when disposals form part of the proposed merger arrangements, but the present legislation is not well-adapted to that. In particular, there is only power to order a disposal following an adverse finding by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; so if a disposal is not carried out, a reference to the MMC may have to be made.
What the Bill therefore provides is for undertakings which would deal with the possible adverse effects of the merger as identified by the Direcor General of Fair Trading, to be enforceable either directly through the courts, or by making an order, without the need for an MMC reference.
The Bill also contains provisions to restrict further acquisitions of each other's shares by the parties to a merger which is referred to the MMC; and to allow us to charge fees to cover the costs of merger control. It also makes a number of other minor changes to improve procedures and remedy deficiencies.

Mr. John Fraser: On what now becomes the 20-day rule for dealing with merger applications, what will happen if the Office of Fair Trading is overwhelmed by a number of major mergers—for example, if two banks, two brewers, BA and BCal all come along together? Will there not be occasions when the 20-day period, even with a 10-day extension, will not be sufficient, particularly if there is a multiple bid with two or three bids coming in against the same company over a period of two or three weeks, but not all on the same day? Is not the time scale too short for a mature and proper consideration of the bid application?

Mr. Newton: The fact that we acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point in general terms is reflected, as he accepted, in the provisions for extension in certain circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman feels that further consideration needs to be given to it, that is very much the kind of point that can be considered further in Committee or by the House at a later stage.
I now turn to part VII, which concerns the way in which insolvency law applies to financial markets. It is a highly complex area. I will content myself by saying that our objective is primarily to remove uncertainties and to clarify the effect that most people believe the current law already has.
Part VIII makes a number of individual changes to the Financial Services Act 1986, the Insolvency Act 1985, the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 and the Building Societies Act 1986. Most of these changes are for clarification or tidying up purposes rather than being major policy departures. But I should refer briefly to clause 158 which removes the right of a professional investor to sue under section 62 of the Financial Services Act if he suffers loss as a result of a breach of the rules made under that Act. In considering experience of the working of the Act we have concluded that in respect of professionals—I emphasise professionals—the provision is inappropriate. I stress, however, that there is no change in the position for private investors, who will retain the additional safeguard provided by section 62.
We propose to bring forward in Committee amendments to achieve certain other changes to the Financial Services Act, following public consultation. The main effect of these amendments will be as follows. First, the Securities and Investments Board will have the ability to promulgate a set of general principles governing the conduct of investment business. A breach of such a principle will not give rise to civil liability under section 62 of the Act but may give rise to disciplinary consequences or the exercise of SIB's powers of intervention. The self-regulatory organisations will be required to adopt these same principles for similar purposes.
Secondly, the SIB will have the ability to require all the self-regulatory organisations to adopt so many of the board's rules as are designated for this purpose by the board. Those rules will have the same status as any other rules; in particular, a breach may give rise to liability under section 62 in appropriate circumstances.
Thirdly, both the SIB and the self-regulatory organisations will be able to supplement their rules with guidance as to the application of those rules in particular cases. A breach of that guidance would not of itself constitute breach of a rule, but could be used as evidence of such a breach.
We also propose to amend the test for recognition of a self-regulatory organisation. In future it will be possible for the SIB to recognise such an organisation if it is satisfied, having regard to the principles, the rules and the guidance, that the organisation provides an adequate level of investor protection, having regard to the type of investor with which its members deal. The board will also be able to take account of the costs of compliance with an organisation's rules. The new recognition test will replace an existing one after a transitional period.
The Government also intend to introduce provisions to increase the scope for the board and the organisations to rely on other financial services regulators, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. The Government believe that these amendments will assist the process, already under way, of simplifying the rules made under the Act without detracting from essential protections for investors.
In generally commending the measure to the House, I should make it plain that there is one aspect of the Bill as it presently stands that I cannot join to that general commendation. That is those parts of clauses I and 8, introduced by amendment in another place, which seek to provide for a form of specific shareholder approval of political donations. As my right hon. Friend made clear in another place, we regard that proposal as defective in that it leaves entirely unclear what the position would be if the shareholders declined to endorse donations already made. Leaving that aside, we see no good reason for going beyond the present position in respect of such donations —a policy that was introduced by a Labour Government in 1967. That legislation already provides that, if the donations exceed £200, they should be specifically disclosed in the annual report.
This provision, coupled with the existing ways in which shareholders, if they wish, can secure discussion of this or any other aspect of the report, seems to strike a sensible balance in ensuring proper openness, without unduly restricting the discretion of company boards acting in good faith, in what they judge to be the companies' interests, to disperse funds on political or charitable donations, or on the sponsorship of voluntary and sporting bodies, and the like.
Therefore, we shall not press for the retention of the provision as the Bill proceeds, but shall invite the Committee to remove it. With that reservation and also recognising that there will be many other aspects of this substantial, and often technical, Bill that the House will wish to discuss more fully at later stages, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have heard the Minister make his comments about the House of Lords' changes to the Bill, which would introduce certain obligations in relation to the disbursement of company funds for political purposes. Will you examine the position of any hon. Member who votes on the Bill tonight who is in receipt of benefits from company disbursements to political parties? The Conservative party, for example, received £4 million in 1987. Would that constitute a direct pecuniary interest and so prevent from voting any Conservative Members who received any grant from central Conservative funds? Would you not agree that if this were the case in a local authority, there would be absolutely no doubt that it would do so? To allow Conservative Members to vote away the clauses because of their own financial involvement would be to draw ridicule and an accusation of corruption on the House.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday—[Interruption.] Yesterday, a question was asked of the Prime Minister and it was later shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that the Conservative Member who asked the question had a direct interest in asking it because of the way in which he was associated with a company—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about your financial support?"] The hooliganism from Conservative Members will not stop me saying that I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that the reputation of the House should remain clean and honourable. If hon. Members who have direct financial interests with companies vote on a motion such as this, it is essential for you to give us guidance.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that I can deal with this matter. As the House well knows, hon. Members declare their interests in the register, which is published. However, on a matter of public policy—the Bill deals with public policy—hon. Members are free to vote as they think appropriate.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I place on record the fact that some of us object most strongly to the fact that this important piece of legislation is being heard tonight at II o'clock and cannot be given the measure of debate that it deserves? I hope that the Government will take into account the objections of hon. Members from both sides of the House who will, I am sure, object to what is happening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We had better get on.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which is inadequately prepared and still contains major lacunae on important issues such as accounting standards and City


regulation, which fails to provide for greater disclosure of a company's affairs, for greater participation by employees and for a more effective regulation of mergers, and which reflects a narrow and outdated view of the role of the limited liability company in a modern society.
Let me begin with the strongest possible protest at the fact that a Second Reading debate on an important measure has begun at such a late hour. I do not believe that there is any precedent, at least in recent times, for a Second Reading debate to be entered upon so late. It makes proper debate of the Bill virtually impossible. [Interruption.] I see that the Conservative Front Bench is trying to shift responsibility to other hon. Members. I remind the Government that the responsibility for ordering their business is theirs, and that if they run into procedural problems they must make the necessary adjustments. I do not think that it shows sufficient concern and respect for the importance of the Bill to ask the House to debate it at this late hour, particularly when we know that tomorrow important county council elections are to be held, and many hon. Members will already have left for their constituencies.
At such an hour we have little chance of airing and elucidating some of the important matters that arise from the Bill. This should have been an opportunity for major debates on a range of questions relating to City regulation, mergers and the role of limited liability companies in our economy. That opportunity has been severely circumscribed by the Government's insistence on bringing the measure before us at this time.
Nevertheless, we want to make it clear that the Bill, although it may appear a technical and perhaps unimportant measure to the casual observer, is very important—important for what it contains, and perhaps even more for the opportunities that it misses. Although limited by the unsatisfactory nature of tonight's debate, we shall treat the Bill on its merits. We shall welcome those parts that we feel able to welcome, such as the provision of wider powers of investigation, but we shall pointedly express our regret—both this evening and in Committee —at the important opportunities that have been missed, and do our best to strengthen what I consider to be the Bill's deficiencies and weaknesses.
Inevitably—as is the nature of such measures—the Bill is something of a hotch-potch. No doubt it began with the perfectly acceptable necessity to act on EEC directives, with which parts I and II are concerned. The problem is that it has subsequently been seen as a repository for odd fragments of change to all sorts of existing provisions. It amends—in a spasmodic way—the Companies Act 1985, the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Financial Services Act 1986, the Insolvency Acts, the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, the Building Societies Act 1986, the Insurance Companies Act 1982, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and no doubt more.
The problem is that, in the Opposition's view, none of those changes has been thought through coherently. The Government are essentially legislating on the hoof. Moreover, changes that are made in this haphazard and spasmodic way are continually being supplemented as the Bill proceeds through both Houses. Already no fewer than 400 Government amendments have been made since it was

published, and we know that we have yet to see the important provisions that the Government are to introduce on accounting standards and City regulation.
As a veteran of both the Insolvency and the Financial Services Acts—I see that some others in that category are present—I know how unsatisfactory that method of legislating can be. In both instances the Government tabled literally hundreds of amendments, in one case over 1,000. I hope that we shall not have a repeat performance. If the Government are not ready for their legislation, they have no right to introduce ill-thought-out proposals late in the day and to ask the House to deal with them, particularly at this time of night.
We have further objections to the form of the Bill. There are far too many clauses allowing the Secretary of State to remedy any omissions or correct any mistakes by changing the Act by statutory instrument at some later date. If the Government have so little confidence in the correctness of their current views, they should take more time before introducing legislative proposals. It is always dangerous and a legitimate cause for suspicion if the Government take powers to change primary legislation by statutory instrument.
Our major anxiety about the Bill lies not with its detailed preparation, but with the Government's general failure of imagination and purpose in respect of the true role of limited liability companies. We all know that the limited liability company is an institution of the greatest importance. The concept of limited liability was introduced to encourage people with money to invest in our industrial economy but to give them protection if they were to invest in enterprises over whose immediate management they had no direct control. I can understand that, and the concept has been immensely valuable. I do not contest the principle of limited liability. The limited liability company has become part of the furniture, and we are inclined to accept it as part of the natural order of things.
An immense range of privileges is provided by law for suppliers of capital, and in this case suppliers who may have very little connection, other than owning certain bits of paper, with the enterprise concerned. The privileges range from the powers of ownership and decisions over employment and deciding major issues of company policy to the power to take divdends from the investment. In addition to those immense powers, it is surprising that we should consider it necessary to include the privilege of limited liability. In effect, after receiving all the advantages that I have just referred to, the investor is permitted by law, if things go wrong, to walk away and leave his debts unpaid. That is how limited liability works. It is time that we had a good look at the conditions on which that privilege can be exercised.
The time has come for a major reappraisal of the operation of limited liability companies. Such companies should no longer be seen as operating exclusively in the interests of the shareholders who possess those privileges. We should be thinking in terms of a company which also has obligations to its employees, consumers, customers and trading partners. We should be concerned about the way in which the market for corporate control in this country often operates in such an exclusive and narrow interest.
We cannot afford to be insular about this. A similar line of thought is increasingly taking hold in Europe and the European company statute is likely to be suggested to us


and thrust upon us before very long. The Bill ignores all that. Essentially it takes a narrow and technical view of any changes in company law which might be required. We contend that the Government have, in this Bill, adopted a narrow and outdated view of the role of the limited liability company.
We shall try to make good those deficiencies by tabling amendments in Committee. We shall try to illustrate our contention that limited liability is a privilege which must be earned by duties to the community, employees, consumers and shareholders. It must be earned by maximum disclosure of what the company is about. Company accounts should be as informative as possible on a whole range of issues which hitherto have not been thought to be of great interest to anyone else.
I had lunch in a hotel today in which I gather another celebration was taking place. At the table next to me a business man whom I did not know was describing to a colleague the operation of his company. He was asked about his turnover and what information he published. He said that he was a great believer in the principle of obfuscation. He did not believe in publishing any information. He believed that the only people who needed to have information were his auditors and Barclays bank.
That attitude characterises the general approach of people who enjoy the privilege of limited liability. We cannot afford to tolerate that attitude any longer. We must ensure that the recommendations of the Dearing committee are acted upon. We should like to see a general accounting committee, a statutory body set up to establish wide-ranging standards and with wide-ranging powers.
However, we want to go beyond that and make sure that company accounts are not just the glossy but uninformative bits of propaganda on bahalf of the company chairman which they often become. Why should company accounts not reveal, for example, the amount that the company spends on research and development, on training and on health and safety? Why should they not reveal the forms and quantities of central and local government assistance that the company receives? Why should they not give some indication of performance in respect of equal opportunities, imports and exports, the environment, pollution control and energy consumption? [Interruption.] The Minister thinks that companies would have little time to do anything else, but a well-run company would know about those things. If companies were compelled to operate monitoring systems for such matters, they would be able to produce information without any great effort.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Gentleman spoke briefly about European aspects. I understand that he is now involved in organising the campaign for Labour's candidates in the European elections in June. In connection with the European company statute, he used the phrase "thrust upon us". Is he now in favour of that statute? Do I detect more enthusiasm from the hon. Gentleman for these European proposals than he has shown in the past?

Mr. Gould: As so often happens in interventions, the hon. Gentleman has intervened a little too soon. He should be patient. As soon as I have moved from my present point, I shall deal with the matter that concerns him.
There are further matters that company accounts should deal with. For instance, we regret that one of the

minor consequences of the measure is that it does away with the obligation in the Companies Act 1985 to disclose the salaries of highly paid employees. Why is that? It is a retrograde step. We want to know what companies pay by way, for example, of transfer fees, golden hellos, to directors. We also want to know about donations to charities and political organisations. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say about those matters.
The amendment passed by a substantial vote in the other place has a rightful place in the Bill. We were dismayed to hear what the Minister had to say. This is a simple issue about openness, fairness and shareholder democracy. We are after equality of sorts between trade unions and companies. The Government were keen to ensure that trade unions had to go through the hoops before they could make donations. We simply want equity of treatment for companies.
On those issues it is difficult at times to pin down the Government's argument. On occasion the Government have argued that the position of shareholders is quite different from that of trade union members because they can easily opt out of one shareholding and move to another company. I noticed that the Minister did not make that argument tonight. He was right not to do so because many shareholders are not direct investors but have their savings invested on their behalf by pension funds and insurance companies. In that respect, the Government's argument breaks down.
We want the inclusion of the simple principle that if a company wishes to make donations to a political party it must ask the shareholders for their approval. If that is not done, the whole range of Government propaganda about shareholder democracy is shown to to be the purest cant, nothing more than drivel, hypocrisy and propaganda. The true interest of the Conservative party is to ensure that companies continue unhindered to make political contributions. Consequently, many shareholders become involuntary contributors to Tory party funds. That is unacceptable.
There is another missed opportunity, and in dealing with it I take up the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). One of the obligations which limited liability companies owe is to their employees. That is increasingly recognised, at times even by Conservative Members. Section 309 of the Companies Act 1985 was an attempt of sorts to recognise that responsibility. It so happens that that provision is unenforceable and almost completely useless.
The amendment of legislation that has been introduced to ease the path towards the establishment of employee share ownership plans is welcome, but it must be recognised that it is the product of the Government yielding to pressure put upon them by the Opposition in another place. We are not concerned to establish employee shareholdings of various sorts. We want to see democratic ESOPs that transfer control of the enterprise to the work force. We are still far short of that objective.
The Bill misses major opportunities in other matters affecting employees. The Minister mentioned the European company statute. That provides for employee participation in a range of possible ways, including two-tier boards, elected employee representatives and a fair amount of flexibility as to how those goals should be achieved. There are also the proposals—these originate from Commissioner Vredeling—for disclosure of inforrnation to employees. These are moves forward on a wide


scale and are widely accepted by many other EEC countries. It remains a matter of surprise and regret to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Government have not seen fit to legislate in that direction. We shall attempt in Committee to make good—here I answer directly the hon. Member for Harrow, East—these omissions. If the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Committee that considers the Bill, I hope that we can count on his support.

Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No, I shall not give way. The hour is late and I shall press on.
We shall pay especial attention to employees' rights to information in special circumstances such as takeovers and mergers bids.
There are other issues of disclosure, such as the important provision in clause 108 that extends the requirement to disclose an interest in shares to holdings as low as 3 per cent. It reduces the time allowed for notification from five to only two days. We believe, however, that that provision is disappointingly inadequate. The proposed changes are welcome so far as they go, but they do not deal effectively with the problems of nominee shareholdings. These are problems that we have seen all too clearly in recent instances, such as in the Guinness and Blue Arrow cases. We believe that the concept of corporate personality is acceptable only so long as those dealing with the company are entitled to know with whom they are dealing. That fundamental principle must surely override the advantage of privacy that is afforded by the use of nominee companies. That principle should apply at all times and not, as the Government's consultative document suggested, only at critical times.
We have similar misgivings about the recently introduced provisions that do away, in effect, with the ultra vires rule. One of the problems with limited liability is that those who claim the privilege are not to be regarded as in the same position as ordinary traders or business men. Under company law, those who deal with people who enjoy limited liability surely need to know what a company has been set up to do. I do not dispute that the ultra vires rule has, in effect, become unworkable in its present form and that something must be done. I put the Minister on notice, however, that we have misgivings about merely sweeping it away. It is not right to put the limited liability company in the same position as the person who enjoys no such privilege.
In the interests of brevity, and in recognition of the lateness of the hour, I shall pass directly to the vexed question of mergers. Part VI deals with mergers, an area in which we believe that the Government have placed themselves in a mess. The current law proceeds on the assumption that mergers and takeovers are likely to be beneficial unless it is shown otherwise. The Government, and especially the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, have made it clear that in principle at least they will intervene only on competition grounds. That takes no account of the wealth of academic evidence to the effect that mergers are likely to be detrimental both to the parties and the national interest. Even the Department of Trade and Industry, in its 1988 blue paper, recognises that

evidence on post-merger performance that has emerged since the 1978 Green Paper supports the earlier findings of disappointing or inconclusive performance.
Furthermore, the emphasis on competition as the sole criterion takes no account of the fact that by comparison with other European Community countries the United Kingdom has a uniquely open market for corporate control. Therefore, our companies need more legislative protection against hostile bids than do their French or German counterparts.
Not surprisingly, the Secretary of State, despite his constant pronouncement, has in practice operated on rather different criteria. Sometimes he thinks that the "foreignness" of a bidder is objectionable; sometimes he does not. Sometimes he takes account of regional, employment or strategic considerations; sometimes he does not. Sometimes he objects to highly leveraged bids; sometimes he does not. It is now impossible to tell in any given case the way that the Secretary of State is likely to jump. The Bill is inadequate for clearing up that confusion.
We gladly support clause 118, which allows for what is called plea bargaining. We believe that the pre-notification procedure is useful—so useful that it ought to be made mandatory. If that requirement were to act as a small disincentive to takeover activity, so much the better. We want those reforms to go further. We want the burden of proof reversed so that mergers or takeovers can proceed only if they are shown to be in the general interest. We should like the public interest criteria in section 84 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, already governing the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, expanded to align it with article 85 of the treaty of Rome and made applicable to the Director of Fair Trading's recommendations and to the Secretary of State's decisions.
We should like new statutory obligations to consult and inform employees about the implications of bids, and particular attention should be paid to the importance of ensuring that conditions laid down by the MMC, and promises made by bidders, are observed.
As to the Financial Services Act 1986, part VII of the Bill attempts to deal with some outstanding issues but falls far short of what is required. It is what is not in the Bill that is of particular concern to us, especially when the overall state of City regulation is in such an unsatisfactory condition. All the evidence is that current attempts at regulation are not effective enough and are not taken seriously enough—which makes it all the more surprising that the Bill does not address that issue.
The Department of Trade and Industry is so slack and inefficient in that respect that Cameron-Webb and Dixon —the villains of the PCW scandal at Lloyd's—escaped criminal charges because of lapse of time. The average amount of time taken for inquiries under the Companies Act 1985 is two years and three months—notwithstanding the points that the Minister made earlier. Nineteen such inquiries remain uncompleted, some dating back to 1982. The DTI has been notoriously incompetent in carrying out its supervisory functions in cases such as Barlow Clowes. When it has discovered something wrong, it has been slow to act, as in the case of Blue Arrow—although I believe that there the fault lay with the Bank of England.
The Secretary of State cannot make up his mind whether serious offences such as insider dealing should be treated seriously. He is happy to allow the MMC to wave through the Minorco bid for ConsGold, notwithstanding


substantial evidence of insider dealing. In the case of the House of Fraser, matters serious enough to be referred to the Serious Fraud Office were apparently not regarded as warranting a re-reference of that bid to the MMC.
There lies the mystery of the whole Al-Fayed business. The answer to that mystery can be found in the Secretary of State's determination to prevent publication of the report until any possibility of a re-reference is past. That possibility will lapse when the House of Lords judgment is delivered—if publication is not enjoined by their Lordships. After then, and however strong may be the case for a re-reference, the Secretary of State will have no legal power to make that decision.
I believe that the Secretary of State well understands that publication of the House of Fraser report now would constitute such an overwhelming case for a re-reference that he would be unable to resist it. That is why he is delaying the matter until he no longer has the power to do anything about it. That is the only sanction that really matters. The prospect of a criminal prosecution in three or four years' time is hardly likely to worry the Al-Fayed brothers. But if the bid could he reopened and they were divested of Harrods, that sanction is one that they would not like.
That raises the question why the Secretary of State is going to such lengths to prevent that possibility from being kept open. The answer must lie either in the source of the Al-Fayeds' money or in the fact that the A1-Fayeds have a relationship with the Government or with the Conservative party which the Conservative party would prefer not to bring to light.
A further problem arises out of the Secretary of State's refusal to publish the report in the even more serious case of Blue Arrow. If he applies the same reasoning, he will be constrained to refuse to publish the Blue Arrow report. Most people who have been following the issue expect that report to disclose serious criminal offences which should certainly be referred to the Serious Fraud Office. If that reasoning is applied, the report will not be published until prosecutions can be brought and therefore there will remain a major cloud hanging over one of our most important financial institutions. The Government will have to face that dilemma and resolve it. I believe that it should be resolved by publication, which is the right answer in the Minorco hid and the Al-Fayed bid.
The Government not only have difficulty in deciding how to apply and enforce the rules, but in this Bill they are deciding to reduce the impact of the rules by amending section 62 of the Financial Services Act 1986. I understand and sympathise with the arguments, but I give the Minister notice that we shall examine that provision with great caution and scepticism. We believe that the threat of civil action for substantial damages is by far the most effective sanction, and the best way to ensure that the rules are observed.
We also find it difficult to understand how the dividing line is to be drawn between the professional investor and the private investor. We have not yet been given the definition. We shall watch that dividing line and definition very closely, bearing in mind that it will vary from time to time and from case to case. But ultimately we are left with the following question: why should the direct investor be allowed such a remedy, while the investor whose savings are invested through a pension fund or through a professional investment manager is denied any such remedy?
We were interested in what the Minister said about the proposition that the Securities and Investments Board should draw up a list of principles. We are not opposed to a simpler and more acceptable rule book, but I find what the Minister had to say about those principles unacceptable. If the proposition is that those principles are not to have the full force of law and are not to be enforceable in the courts by those aggrieved by their breach, I do not believe that. the House should accept it. We shall certainly resist it.
The problems of City regulation arise from one single factor—the belief still current in the City and, it seems, in the DTI that rules which should normally be enforced with full rigour in other walks of life have less force when they apply to the City and financial markets, and that criminal offences committed in the City are not serious. That view was reinforced by the Government's reluctance to provide clear statutory rules and proper enforcement mechanisms. The City will not get the right message until the SIB and the takeover panel are made statutory bodies with full enforcement powers so that no one is in any doubt that they mean business and that the law will be applied.
The Bill is an important provision and a missed opportunity. It demonstrates by virtue of the fact that we are debating it at this time of night, the cavalier attitude with which the Government have approached so many important matters. We shall try to remedy their deficiencies. We shall try to help the Government to produce a Bill which deals effectively and constructively with the pressing problems of City regulation, the regulation of mergers and the true role of the limited liability company. At present the Bill fails to meet those responsibilities. We shall do our best to make sure that it does so.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I share the regret that we should be discussing such an important measure so late at night. I shall keep my remarks extremely brief as a result, and it is good to have the support of my hon. Friends behind me for that.
I believe that the Chingford guidelines on mergers are correct, and I am glad that they retain support in the provisions of the Bill. I notice with approval that measures are being taken to speed up references to and investigations by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will not regard speed as an absolute essential in dealing with changes in capital structures and capital ownership of companies. It is useful, but it must not be the overriding factor.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider further and tell us a little more about the definition of public interest, especially in relation to highly geared acquirers, whether they be from the Antipodes or Britain, whose acquisitions may be against the public interest.
The 13th directive of the EEC threatens to make statutory the provisions of the takeover code. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider carefully before advancing statutory regulation in that way. The self-regulatory justice provided in the takeover code is efficient, sometimes rough but generally effective, much cheaper and quicker, and preferable to a court of law. It is a good deterrent for the sort of wrongdoing that it is designed to prevent.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not agree to exactly the same regulatory machinery for takeovers throughout the EEC. Surely the test should be that the rules, as they are applied in each EEC country, should have the same practical effect. We should not observe tidiness as a virtue, because it certainly is not.
Takeovers are a part of our system and have improved the performance and competitiveness of our companies, but I wonder whether we rely on them for our competitiveness too much. As a result of takeovers, too many companies have lost their regional and local control and have become too centralised in London. It is argued that company law may have helped a little in this process. There can be no doubt that taxation, especially capital and inheritance tax provision, has accelerated centralisation in London, as have centralisation of Government Departments and civil servants in London. I want more companies to remain locally controlled and to grow and mature where they are born and bred.
Political contributions have been mentioned. There is no direct parallel between trade union political funds and company political contributions—partly, but not only, because the money belongs not to shareholders but to companies. Subject to the general rule for any expenditure, any payment by a company must be made for the benefit of the company, and the ultra vires rules, albeit varied by the Bill, and directors' ultra vires rules, govern the payment of these sums. The closest parallel is between payments made to political parties and other payments made by companies, such as to local charities or communities.
The change that their noble Lordships have suggested is a fundamental change of principle that all payments by companies should be voted on. That would lead to chaos in companies' accounting affairs if every payment—and this would be a precedent for many more—has to be voted on by shareholders. It is not clear what happens if the payment is voted down. The directors are responsible for their activities to their shareholders and are answerable to them. It is right that those payments should be disclosed.
How do we deal with the great problem behind this matter—the Labour party's concern that companies may give donations to the Conservative party, the Liberal party and SDP and possibly, in the future, the Labour party? That is why the Labour party wants the Bill not to be amended, but it has a remedy at its beck and call, which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has mentioned. If it is shown that at last the Labour party has become interested in business and is prepared to acknowledge the important part that limited companies play in our society and economy and the fact is acknowledged that we all depend on their profitability and the jobs that they provide, its worries will disappear.
The hon. Member for Dagenham has told us that he spent some time today twinkling in and out between lunch tables in the City. That is good news for the Labour party. It may remove its worries about political contributions. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I echo the disappointment and criticism over the manner in which the Government have commenced their dealings on

the Bill in this House. On this occasion, I do not blame the Department of Trade and Industry. If a criticism is to be made, it is of the Government Whips Office. However, the DTI is culpable in that it would have preferred a fuller and more sensible hour of debate—perhaps next week—but I suspect that it was overruled by the Government's business managers.
The Minister delivered a thumbnail sketch—it could be no more than that—on this wide-ranging, technical and, in parts, deeply political legislation in only 16 minutes at the Dispatch Box. To be fair, the right hon. Gentleman gave way on the few occasions when there were interventions, but I think that he will agree that that was hardly satisfactory for a Second Reading speech. I do not think that he would be happy with it. Many matters, including those on which the right hon. Gentleman touched, will be raised in Committee.
I shall confine my remarks to three aspects of the legislation—mergers policy, company accounts and political donations, and employee share ownership. I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), on the continuing unsuitability of the strict definition of competition as the only ground on which the Government will take a view on proposed mergers. The MMC's wider remit in considering the public interest covers competition, consumers, costs and product development, distribution of industry and employment and competitive activity overseas. That remit underscores the deficiency of the existing guidelines as laid down by a former Secretary of State—the Chingford rules—and referred to more recently in a speech by the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the stock exchange on 27 October last year.
The Government are acquiescing—I was going to say "pursuing", but that suggests a degree of activity that does not exist—through a free market mentality, in the concentration of greater economic power in ever fewer hands, which is relevant in terms of large institutional shareholdings, such as pension funds. Many takeovers are purely acquisitive. Predators are looking to boost short-term funds by acquiring companies with existing assets which, all too often, are undervalued. There is a legitimate role, therefore, for far greater Government intervention—if they do not like the word "intervention", we could substitute the concept of healthy political or governmental interest—in some of the merger dealings that take place at the moment. A wider public interest basis for merger policy at the Department of Trade and Industry is long overdue.
Over the past decade, the Government have done much in legislation to encourage an increase in the percentage of the population who fall into the small shareholding category. They trumpet their achievements in that regard, and much of what they have done is to be welcomed. In addition to that, however, we must consider the more significant increase in institutional shareholders. Institutional shareholders do not necessarily have an interest in the fortunes of employees or the local economy. They often switch their money about to a great extent; consequently, they will not necessarily have a great commitment to the long-term prospects of a company. That is not always the case but it can be, and in being unwilling fully to address those aspects in the Bill, the Government are missing an opportunity.
Let me deal with company accounts and political donations. The Minister made a short speech—commendably so, given the lateness of the hour. He therefore did not enter into a detailed defence of the Government's thinking. In a sense, that in itself was rather revealing. In my view, the Government's position on political donations is utterly indefensible, and it is indefensible no matter which political party is involved.
It is extremely arrogant of the Government not to have made any concession to the House of Lords. They propose simply to try to delete the change made to the Bill in the other place. They do not propose even to try to meet the spirit of that proposal halfway. That arises from the arrogance of the Secretary of State, who, in our experience, has very little time for or courtesy towards others views—even where his own party is concerned, if we are to believe the criticisms that have been levelled against him. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Trade and Industry had to defend the Government's position on Harrods and looked rather shamefaced about it. He had to do that as a result of the lack of action by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State should have been willing to meet the spirit, if not the substance, of the amendment passed in another place, yet the Government have announced in a cavalier fashion in this truncated Second Reading debate that they intend to knock out the amendment and go no way towards the principle of equity in company donations —particularly, although by no means exclusively, in political donations. That is indefensible.
I cannot see how the Government can deny the obvious parallel with the trade union political levy ballots. My hon. Friends and I supported that proposal at the time, but we did so on the basis that such an approach should be even-handed. Any chairman of a sizeable company will confirm that, come an annual general meeting—a great opportunity, we are told, for shareholders to ask to what uses the company's resources have been put—any company chairman worth his salt and his telephone-digit salary can have the meeting in his pocket on such questions. Therefore, the Government are on thin ice in trying to defend their position on political donations.
To end on a happier note, there are some good aspects to the Government's policy on share ownership. Most notably, they have made a major concession in agreeing to introduce an employee share ownership scheme. At the moment, companies are prohibited from giving financial assistance to buying shares. That will be amended so that companies can help their employees to buy shares. That is to be welcomed. If we are to encourage share ownership, as the Government want, it is also extremely important to encourage greater shareowner democracy. It was unfortunate that, in the other place, Lord Monson's amendment was defeated. It read:
In the case of a company having an issued and fully paid share capital of £2·5 million, every notice calling a meeting of the company issued to those of its members entitled to attend a vote at the meeting whose registered addresses are in the UK shall he accompanied by a reply-paid form of proxy.
That is a sensible suggestion which can be easily tacked on to the Bill. I do not see it resulting in undue bureaucracy or difficulty for the company concerned. It would therefore enhance the concept of share ownership democracy. Of course, some but not all companies already follow such a practice. Surely it is important to make it as easy as

possible for small shareholders. Most often, they will be new to the game of having a say in the company that they partly own.
I agree with much of the sense of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Dagenham that this is a comprehensive, or at least fairly straddled piece of legislation. It touches both technically and politically on a wide range of matters. In this case, the Government have an opportunity to improve matters. However, on the issue on which they were defeated in the other place and in relation to other potential aspects of the Bill, they are certainly not displaying a constructive attitude towards the Committee's proceedings. They certainly have not endgendered a good spirit in choosing to move the Second Reading of the Bill in its present form and at this hour.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I welcome this constructive Bill. I will confine my remarks to one subject, the last matter raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)—employee share ownership. I welcome Government amendments Nos. 105 and 107, moved in the other place, both of which refer to facilitating wider employee share ownership. This forms part of the overall Government strategy to encourage worker participation, as we have already seen in the Finance Bill and the Budget.
In effect, clause 105 facilitates the formation of partnership companies, by enabling the Secretary of State to prescribe regulations under statutory instrument for table G—a model set of articles of association. That is important because, in some circumstances, a decision which is marginal can be influenced by financial considerations, and the availability of those various tables —and this one in particular—will enable much hard legal work to be overcome since the model articles are openly available.
Much of the work behind this amendment was done by Lord Onslow in another place, and the Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward their own amendment. Clause 107 also has a major impact on employee share ownership by enabling companies to give financial assistance for the acquisition of their own shares in circumstances related to the formation of an employee benefit trust.
I raised an eyebrow at the remark of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that much of the progress made on employee share ownership was the result of Opposition pressure. That is simply untrue. Many of my colleagues and I have been waging a campaign since the last Finance Bill for this initiative, and I know only too well the confusion on this matter, since the Finance Bill debate, amongst Labour Members.

Mr. Gould: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to make the point that this provision was all part of the Government's plan? If that is so, why was no such provision included in the Bill when it was originally published?

Mr. Taylor: That is precisely the point. Several of us, with the co-operation, for example, of Lord Onslow, persuaded the Government of the rectitude of this proposal. The hon. Gentleman should also be aware that it is important to see this measure in tandem with the Finance Bill because the two interrelate closely. For the hon. Gentleman to claim credit for this proposal when he


has been forced to admit, in an issue of Marxism Today, that when one mentions the word "shares" in the Labour party one is regarded as a raging capitalist, is intriguing indeed. It is also revealing that he only identifies the possibility of having a benefit for workers if they also have control. That means that in nine cases out of 10 he will deny the workers the benefits they might receive from some equity holding in a company simply because of some dogmatic structure that requires that they should have over 51 per cent.

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman has totally misinterpreted and misquoted me and misrepresented my position. We have no view on whether there should be employee share ownership schemes. If people want them, that is fine. However, without taking any view against such schemes that do not bring control, our objective is to have schemes that do bring control. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see that, logically, it does not follow from that that we are in any sense opposed to other forms of scheme.

Mr. Taylor: The continued emphasis on the fact of control is important and gives a clue to the Opposition's principal interest in employee share ownership schemes. The reality is that workers, through employee ownership, can get the fruits of capital from their own labour. The percentage of control is a totally misleading guideline.
Small companies can often benefit from very small amounts of capital put into the hands of their workers, and that gives them a commitment to the future success of the company. That is the way in which the Government want to see the scheme work. It is also significant that there is a criticism inherent in the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and others that calls for greater participation by employees. Greater participation by employees is already enshrined in this Bill in clauses 105 and 107. Therefore, the true meaning is that the hon. Member for Dagenham and his colleagues want to see worker participation in the form of mitbestimmung and other such measures to which many Conservative Members are rigorously opposed.

Mr. David Winnick: I agree with the many valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I view, as he and my other hon. Friends do, with considerable concern the vast concentration of economic power in giant private monopolies and multinationals, and this Bill will do little or nothing to change that.
The only aspect of the Bill I will deal with at this late hour is political donations. It comes as no surprise that the Minister announced that the amendment passed in another place would not be accepted by the Government. I refer to the provision in the Bill as it stands that requires specific approval of shareholders for political donations. I have raised several times the matter of company donations for political purposes, mainly on ten-minute Bills.
When I asked, on a point of order, for some guidance from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a number of Conservative Members shouted, "What about your financial support?", so I had better declare an interest now. Although I have not heard many declarations of interest from Conservative Members, I shall declare my interest. I receive directly no

money whatsoever from my union, which is APEX—the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff, which is now part of GMB.
As I have explained—we all fill in our own register—I am not sponsored by my union, although if I was I would make no apology, but over a period my union has made contributions to my election campaign. It pays £100 per year to the constituency party, and £50 for secretarial expenses, which is sent to me and which I pass on to the constituency party. I hope that that explains my position.
I shall come in a moment to the way in which trade unions make political donations—[Interruption.] No, there is no doubt in my mind that the provision now in the Bill should remain as it is.
Some of the ways in which company donations are made to the Tory party are undesirable. They may be within the law, but they are only just within it. They are underhand, secretive and murky. Sometimes it reminds one of how the Mafia organisation launders money to be used for legitimate purposes.
More light has been thrown on this murky subject by some excellent material that has appeared recently in The Independent. The articles in question brought to light what are known as the river companies. I must confess that I did not know about the river companies on the occasions when I raised these issues in ten-minute Bills and the like, and I doubt whether any other Opposition Member was aware that the river companies existed. The river companies were set up to get round certain legal technicalities that prevented gifts being made to the Conservative party which, not being a commercial company, had certain problems in receiving those gifts. After the war it was decided to set up the river companies. Most of the money received by the river companies was received from large companies and was used by the Conservative party.
Substantial donations were sent to a front organisation that I had certainly heard of and the existence of which I had been aware of for many years—British United Industrialists. The money was first given by companies to British United Industrialists and was passed to the river companies and finally reached Tory Central Office. That is what I mean when I talk about "laundered" money. It is underhand and murky. Why could not the donation be made directly by the companies to the Conservative party?

Mr. Tim Smith: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not know about that because it was the Labour Government's Companies Act 1967 that required companies to disclose such contributions in their accounts. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to look at the accounts of individual companies, he would have seen contributions to British United Industrialists, among others.

Mr. Winnick: I am aware of what has passed in 1967 because I was here and supported that Act at the time. Up to that time there was no way in which companies could be shown to have donated money, and even with the introduction of that provision in 1967 the fact remains that many of the contributions made by companies are underhand.
I have already made it clear that I was aware of the existence of British United Industrialists. Today that organisation passes its donations to another organisation, Drummond bank, free enterprise account. However, that


Conservative party account is not mentioned in the figures that are published by Conservative Central Office. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) may wish to tell us about that organisation.
It seems that literally millions of pounds have been channelled to the Tory party from British United Industrialists. That organisation also supports actively and fnancially the Economic League. It could be argued that we are talking about relatively small sums that do not really make much difference because they amount to only £100 or £200, but that is not so. The figures published show that some £4·5 million was donated by large companies to the Conservative party just for the 1987 election campaign. Hartley Investment Trust gave the Tories £167,000, George Weston Holdings gave £150,000, British and Commonwealth Holdings gave £137,000, Hanson gave £102,000, Taylor Woodrow gave £78,000, United Biscuits, one of the firmest commercial supporters of the Conservative party, gave £100,000, P and 0 gave £100,000 and Allied Lyons gave £97,000. That money was given for just one general election campaign.
Surely it is not too much to ask that, before such large donations are made by companies, the approval of shareholders should be acquired. Before the law was changed a few years ago by this same Government, my union had a political fund, which, I admit, had been established many years previously. That fund could always have been modified or ended at the annual conference of my union, which would have been perfectly democratic. Anyone could opt out and many did because they did not want to pay into the political fund. Along came this Government, however, and said that that was not good enough. They said that all trade unions had to have a political fund ballot every 10 years.
In 1985 I took part in the political fund ballot of my union, then APEX. I tried to persuade members that they should continue to have a political fund. I must confess that during that campaign I spoke about the money that was donated to the Tory party by big business. I am glad that, at the end of the campaign, all the unions with political funds succeeded in their ballots—we had a majority of more than 70 per cent. The irony was that a couple of trade unions that had never had political funds had a ballot and decided to establish them. I was pleased about that.
The unions' behaviour is in stark contrast to that of the Government. The Government told the trade unions that they had to have political fund ballots every 10 years before such funds could be maintained to make contributions to, as we all know, the Labour party. A modest proposal passed in the other place would simply mean that shareholders would be able to decide whether contributions of a political nature should be made. That would affect the Conservative party, and the Minister has said that such a proposal is out of the question and that it will be changed in Committee. That is the height of hypocrisy. Surely no one can deny the contrast in behaviour.
I accept, of course, that I am politically biased—as is everyone in this House. We want to ensure that our argument is the best, but surely we should be concerned about standards in political and public life. If a trade union acts corruptly, that is indefensible. I would not wish to argue in favour of such a union, which would bring discredit to the trade union movement. I have no wish to defend indefensible practices. Conservative Members seem

to be unanimous, however, that the present practice whereby companies donate large sums of money to their organisation is all right. They believe that the law should not be changed and that everything is in order, however murky, underhand and secretive it is, as shown by the articles in The Independent on the river companies, British United Industrialists and all the rest. Undoubtedly the time will come when another Government will be in office and they will make changes which are perhaps more substantial than the modest proposals carried in the other place.
I know that there are people inside the Conservative party, if not inside the House, who share our views. They are, of course, as anti-Labour as Conservative Members; otherwise they would not be active members of the Conservative party. I know of the Charter movement and of Mr. Eric Chalker and others who are looked upon almost in the same way as dissidents in the Soviet Union. They take a different view from the Minister and Conservative Members. The Charter movement inside the Conservative party argues that the Tory party should be far more open about its finances and that Conservative Central Office should publish full, audited accounts. It is remarkable in this day and age that anyone should have to campaign for what should be taken for granted in a political organisation. The Labour party has always published full, audited accounts. It would be odd if it did not do so.
I have no wish to personally attack or smear any Conservative Member—I am concerned with the politics of the matter—but when I look at the Register of Members' Interests I see that in some cases Conservative Members have several directorships. For instance, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has 12 directorships. Other hon. Members, present or absent, have a substantial number of directorships. A number of the companies mentioned donate large sums of money to the Conservative party. Those hon. Members are firmly opposed to any change of the law, yet four years ago they were only too keen to change the law regarding the political funds of trade unions. Those individuals, like the Government, are acting in a hypocritical manner. I beg Conservative Members to understand that there is a need to retain the amendment carried in another place. If there is a change, as undoubtedly there will be arising from what the Minister has said, when another Government come to office there will be substantial changes in party finances.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke principally on one issue. I make no complaint about it, but the Bill affects thousands of companies, hundreds of thousands of shareholders, investors, creditors and debtors, and millions of employees and customers. Perhaps they were entitled in the breadth of the debate to a little more comment on the issues than the navel-studying issue of political contributions, although I do not under-estimate the depth of feeling of hon. Members in both Houses, and on both sides, about the matter.
In observance of the conventions of the House, I wish to declare my personal interests as a director of, and a consultant to, a number of companies—one plc, two private companies and two charitable companies. The plc


is the General Electric Company, which is relevant in that it has recently been involved in a takeover bid, although that is not relevant to what I wish to say now.
I also want to take the opportunity to register a protest. The Government do the House no service in bringing forward such legislation late at night. First, we should blame the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). I understand the Government's point of view, that they should not have to alter the legislative programme for major Bills because of the irresponsibility and the publicity stunt of the hon. Member for Govan. I think that he will get his come-uppance in due course. That example shows yet again that we as a House should exercise more of a self-denying ordinance about messing up the business of the House and of the Government of the day. The first responsibility lies with the House. As an ordinary Back-Bench Member I say that we should exercise more responsibility.
Secondly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you and Mr. Speaker speak for the House. You are our representatives to the outside world. We respect you. In you is the repository of the heritage, the good order, the respect and the procedure of the House. While it is not for me to put words in your mouth or to raise a point of order, I believe that the House should be concerned—with the concern reflected through the Chair—about such procedures and the fact that Ministers are detained here late at night. I have just met the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who may be making important decisions about roads in our constituencies tomorrow. What nonsense it is that he should have to be here at this time of night because of the irresponsibility of the hon. Member for Govan. Finally, there is the responsibility of business managers and the Ministers because it is their Bill and it is within their bailiwick to decide whether to bring forward the Bill.
The House knows, and it should be said in the House, that this business could, and should, have taken place tomorrow. Why was it not conducted tomorrow? We should not continue to put up with cursorily discussing so late at night important Bills that affect so many people and lay down legislation for a decade ahead. I have said my piece at too great a length on that matter.
The first two parts of this important Bill implement two European Community directives, both of which are necessary and overdue. The Bill is an important step towards improving the standards of auditing and accountancy in this country, and the education, supervision and control of the accounting profession. As the Opposition motion—subsequent to Second Reading —suggests, the proceedings of the Bill would be more adequately dealt with by a special Standing Committee. The Bill is ideally suited to that procedure.
The special Standing Committee procedure allows for only four mornings on which the Committee sits, with the Chairman of the relevant Select Committee, to take evidence from relevant organisations. When discussing a Bill of this magnitude, technicality and importance, in which legislation is framed that will affect major professions in this country, we should want to hear what those professions have to say. We, as a House and as a Committee, should take evidence from them.
I am told that the problem is time, and that if those extra days were allocated, it would not necessarily reduce

the amount of time that the Bill was in Standing Committee. However, parliamentary procedures should be pursued not for the convenience of the Government, but for the good government of the country. They should be enshrined in good, entrenched and workable law. The special Standing Committee procedure would allow that to happen and would be well suited to do so.
When implementing the European standards of accountancy in this country, the European countries will have a great deal to learn from us, and we shall have little to learn from them. I would like Ministers to assure me that just as we will implement—no doubt to the letter—the requirements of the directives in this country, we shall press hard for those directives to be fully implemented in other European countries. The single Europe, the degree of competition, the prosperity and prospects of British companies, will rely as much on the comparable standards of accountancy and disclosure—which certainly do not exist at the moment—in the European Community, as they will on the implementation of the high standards of probity in this country.
I welcome the moves that the Government are making in relation to part VI and the competition policy, as elsewhere in the Bill, to streamline and speed up the process of supervision and decision-making on takeovers and mergers. Increasingly in recent years, successive Ministers of Governments of different political colours have been placed in an increasingly difficult position. Not only have their utterances and decisions been increasingly subject to litigation and legal challenge, but they have to withdraw and be much more circumspect about what they can say, in the House and elsewhere, about important matters of public policy, industries and competition because of pending Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiries and litigation. That is not necessarily good.
Part of the answer to this problem might be to shift out of the Department the process of supervision, as I and others have sought to do with regard to the supervision of the investment and financial markets. In this case it would involve moving the supervision towards some of the accountancy and other professions and, particularly, to give powers to those other than the Secretary of State for the supervision of monopolies and mergers. In my view, however, that would not be desirable. Every merger is individual, and inevitably—certainly in the case of major mergers—contains a range of political and regional factors that should be taken into account. Ultimately, the need for a political decision cannot be ignored or circumvented, although it is right for us to construct procedures to ensure that the Secretary of State receives the best possible objective—informed advice.
In deciding to speed up the process the Government have chosen a course that has been welcomed on both sides of the House, and I look forward to discussion in Committee. It is, effectively, plea bargaining. I should like an assurance, however, that it is not a charter for leveraged buy-outs, for I fear that speeding up or making easier the process whereby applicants to the Department of Trade and Industry can be told, "Yes, you will be given permission for a takeover without a reference if you agree beforehand to undertake to divest yourself of certain subsidiaries afterwards" will lead to many companies trying it on. They will try various formulae for the hiving off of various subsidiaries. The leveraged buy-out phenomenon has not yet swept this country, but it has swept the United States.
Moreover, I do not consider the process itself helpful or beneficial to the development of British industry or to the confidence of other investors who are by no means in such a powerful position as major shareholders, and certainly the institutions. I am a little concerned about the restraints, controls and conditions that will be attached to such procedures to ensure that this is not a charter for takeovers which will result in virtualy no references being made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I believe that there is a role for the commission, which has done outstanding work and which, under Mr. Sydney Lipworth has not only proved very good value for money in public expenditure but, over the past year, has considered an increasing number of cases with great diligence and impartiality.
While I welcome much that is in the Bill, I believe that we should consider other measures that are increasingly necessary in company law. Let me mention, in general terms—I think that this relates partly to the initial dissertation by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the changing roles and obligations of limited companies—my increasing concern about the way in which public limited companies are using shareholders' funds for some rather questionable purposes. The House should be very concerned about the personal vendettas, highly questionable loans and activities apparently wholly unconnected with companies' articles of association that we have seen in recent years.
My own view, as I think is well known, is broadly in line with that of the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams. I believe that there is a pressing need for us to consider ways of supporting and empowering non-executive directors—or at least some elements on the board—to require, through separate responsibilities and abilities, certain financial information. I am not yet persuaded of the need to adopt the supervisory board system employed elsewhere in the European Community; I believe that we can accommodate such arrangements within our unitary board tradition. Nevertheless, in many companies it simply is not working out.
It is not good enough that companies are making substantial loans, grants and disbursements for people and activities wholly unassociated with what shareholders believe to be taking place. That is not good for investment, for the City, for probity or for the recognition of company law in this country. If it is getting out of hand, as I believe it is, we should strengthen and bolster the role of non-executive directors. We have done that in banking. Partly by coercion and partly voluntarily, new standards of probity have been established in the banking community. It is difficult to achieve unanimity and a perfect performance elsewhere, and much remains to be done. I predict that the problems will get worse unless the House does something about the problem.
In many of its measures, particularly the disclosure measures in part I and II, the Bill does much to rectify the problems. I hope that in the later stages Ministers will be able to reassure us that the comprehensive nature of the proposals answers many of the fears that I have expressed and which I know are abroad elsewhere in the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be relatively brief because of the late hour at which we are debating this Bill. We have been forced to debate it because the

Government insisted that it should be debated at this late hour. The Bill is long, complicated and technical. It is wrong that we should be debating it now. I do not know why the Government have insisted on this, unless they want to diminish the long, boring intervention made earlier by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). I must point out that he is no longer in the Chamber. He spoke at length and pushed our proceedings into the early hours, but he has now disappeared. None of the SNP Members is interested in this legislation, which will affect Scotland and will have equally grave importance for Scottish Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Having received that support, I suspect that my next remarks will not receive such universal commendation.
The Minister referred to clause 19, which tightens the definitions of parent undertaking and subsidiary undertaking. That is pleasing. A lot of siphoning off of companies has occurred to defeat legitimate industrial disputes involving the trade union movement. If clause 19 stops that abuse—I suspect that that is not the reason why the Minister included it in the Bill—it will help to encourage decent industrial relations. However, the Minister has included the clause to stop abuse and, as he said, to make consolidated accounts more meaningful and to avoid evasions caused by the siphoning off of companies. Evasions also occur in the responsibilities of allowing trade unionists the proper rights to undertake legitimate industrial action against companies.
Part III is entitled:
Investigations and powers to obtain information.
That section of the Bill refers to stronger investigative powers. That is good, but those powers do not go far enough. They do not go as far as the comprehensive investigative powers of the Department of Social Security. I cannot find any clause in the Bill which allows inspectors to stand outside a company office to spy on the activities of people inside. Inspectors in the Department of Social Security have such powers in respect of disputes about relatively paltry sums.
While I welcome the increased powers to obtain information and the investigations, I would argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) argued, that they do not go far enough. The Government have a great deal of experience of pursuing recipients of relatively tiny sums in the form of social security benefits. I should have thought that they could invoke some of that experience against the massive sums which are being defrauded in the City.
I have a few comments to make about the provision from the other place to give some meaning to shareholder democracy. I do not have much sympathy for that concept, because there is not much of it about. The Government are not prepared to extend it, because the House of Lords is not a very radical place. It moves very mild amendments, and that is what it has done in this case. It is not all that radical to permit shareholders who provide the money to make the decision about political donations. The Government are denying shareholders that opportunity. They are giving a kick in the teeth to the people they are supposed to be encouraging.
What are the Government afraid of? Are they afraid that shareholders might say, "We don't want to give money to the Conservative party that produced this wretched Government"? The Government should put the matter to the test. They have insisted on ballots for trade unionists and trade unions. Clearly, they have double


standards, because they will not give shareholders the sort of rights that they claim have spread democracy in the trade unions. That is an appalling example of Government hyprocrisy.
There is some interesting information about why the Government are hesitant to do that. They are hesitant because they might lose a great deal of money. "Labour Research" for December 1988 conducted a survey to determine political donations. It revealed that 1987, election year, saw the highest amount of money being given to the Conservative party. There was a total direct donation to the Conservative party of £4,528,533, from 333 companies. That is not the total of political donations, but I shall come to that in a moment.
Metal goods, engineering and vehicle companies gave the Tories £657,533. Energy and water supplies contributed the comparatively trivial amount of £14,333. The extraction of minerals and ores, and the manufacture of metals, mineral products and pharmaceuticals handed over £449,250 and general manufacturing handed over £943,810. Distribution, hotels and catering produced £229,552. Construction and other such companies, including Taylor Woodrow, which is an avid supporter of the Conservative party and which one recalls built Ronan Point, produced £461,925. Transport and communications produced £188,950.
However, it is when one comes to banking, finance and insurance that one sees where the real pearls were handed to the swine, if I may use that phrase. Banking, finance and insurance produced £1,451,550. No wonder that powers of investigation are not to be applied to such enthusiastic supporters of the Government. After all, they contributed almost £1·5 million directly to the Tory party.
As I said earlier, that was not the total amount given to the Tory party and front organisations. Total donations were £5,023,243. The paltry amount of £42,250 went to the SDP-Liberal alliance and no doubt the money came from Tories eager to split the Opposition vote. The Labour party received £1,000, and £4·5 million went to the Conservative party. British United Industrialists, which is a hiving-off operation to give money to the Tory party, received £214,750 and the Economic League, which exists to spy on workers and hand over the information in a most disgusting manner to employers, received £52,592. The Tory Centre for Policy Studies, which has several graduates in this place producing their noxious nostrums, received £81,500. Aims of Industry received £22,110 and so on.
All the money—well, 99·9 per cent. of it—went to the Tory party or its front organisations. It is pretty timid, to say the least, of the Government not to be able to say—this is what they say to trade unionists—"We have given you an element of democracy." The Government have insisted —

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: I shall not give way. The hour is too late, and it is the Government who—

Mr. Wardle: rose—

Mr. Cryer: I will not give way. The Government have insisted on introducing the Bill at this late hour and they must accept any difficulties that occur.
The Government have insisted that trade unionists should have ballots before they take strike action. Similarly, they have insisted that trade unionists should use ballots to elect officials, although the democracy of trade unions has developed over the years and the Government's intervention was really an attempt to diminish democracy. In the Government's terms, however, they claim that they have extended democracy for trade unions.

Mr. Wardle: rose—

Mr. Cryer: Unfortunately, the Government will not apply the same principle to shareholders. Surely shareholders are those whom the Government claim to cosset. When the Government steal public assets from the citizenry at large and hand them over to a relatively few shareholders, they claim that they are spreading shareholder involvement and a participating democracy. It is described by some as people's capitalism. It should be noted that those who have capital are not allowed to decide which organisations should receive political donations. They are not allowed to decide the amount of such donations.

Mr. Wardle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Cryer: The fact that they are not allowed to do so is an outrage. I hope that it is another nail in the Government's coffin. It may not be an especially large nail, but many others are being hammered in, as the Vale of Glamorgan by-election and the local authority elections tomorrow will demonstrate.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I welcome the Bill, which is a long-awaited measure, and the majority of its provisions. I regret only that earlier parliamentary antics have curtailed the debate on a most important Bill. The more substantial contributions to it must await the Bill's consideration in Committee. I shall reduce my speech to three main areas, but I am grateful that there has been no undue pressure from the Government to shorten the debate on Second Reading. I understand that consideration must be given to all hon. Members, but the House must understand that certain matters must be raised on Second Reading if we are to have an effect on the consideration of the Bill in Committee. It is difficult for those who wish to raise technical matters at this time of night, and perhaps unfair on them, if they are obliged to do so only briefly.
Primarily, the Bill implements the seventh and eighth company law directives that regulate consolidated accounts and the regulation of auditors. The opportunity has been taken, however, to improve and strengthen company law while at the same time removing many unnecessary burdens and elements of bureaucracy.
I am mindful of the great effect that the Bill will have on the regulation and practice of auditors. I wish to declare an interest as a chartered accountant and the parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
The Bill, as with every recent companies Bill, has received exhaustive examination during its passage through the other place. These are important technical and largely non-political Bills and they are often the subject of many amendments and new clauses. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that the Insolvency Bill, as it then was, to which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) referred, contained 200 clauses. It was the subject of 1,400 amendments, of which 1,250 were tabled by the Government. That must prove that the Department, or its draftsmen, did not have everything right initially and that proper discussion improved an imperfect Bill. In the end, that discussion produced reasonable, although imperfect, legislation. In the main, the Bill that is before us has fewer defects.
Part I deals with company accounts. Accounting standards will soon be brought into our consideration of the Bill, and the issue is so important that I feel that is should be raised this evening. There may be many hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel that accounting standards constitute an unimportant and esoteric matter, but every set of accounts and every bid, be it an attack or a defence, relies on a set of standards that must be observed in the creation of figures that can mean millions or billions of pounds for shareholders, employees and, increasingly, for those who are both shareholders and employees. In other words, accounting standards are vital to achieving a level playing field.
In 1969, to reduce the variety of accounting practice and to make accounts more consistent for the reader, certain standards were formulated. That programme was financed and developed by accountants through an extra levy on their subscriptions. Therefore, that work was completely paid for by the practitioners—although it was respected enough for many of its basic concepts to be incorporated in later company law statute.
That programme expanded over the past 20 years, but the preparation and enforcement remain with the accountancy profession alone. The system has very largely been a great success, as the improved economy, as measured by the values and numbers of shareholdings, shows. After all, any lack of confidence in the integrity of published accounts would have led to a severe reluctance of invest in United Kingdom companies, with highly damaging consequences for Britain as an international financial centre.
We need enforceable accounting standards, but the accountancy profession can discipline only its own members. Only the Government can establish a system effectively to regulate the corporate sector when it breaches standards. Eighteen months ago the Combined Consultative Accountancy Body—the six accountancy bodies recognised by statute—established the Dearing committee to suggest the way forward in creating an independent body to devise and enforce standards. The result is the Financial Reporting Council which, it is suggested, should comprise 25 representatives of preparers, users and auditors of accounts, supervising and guiding the work of the nine-person accounting standards board. Also proposed is a review panel to review and enforce compliance with the standards.
The accountancy profession welcomes the Dearing report and is pleased that the Government agreed to implement its proposals. However, the ICAEW has strong reservations about the way in which the Government intend implementing them. As to the membership of the

FRC, the Government suggest that its chairman should be appointed by the Secretary of State, possibly with the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England, but that its other members should be representatives of accountancy firms, large and small companies, banks, perhaps the Confederation of British Industry, and the stock exchange.
It is suggested that anyone wanting to join could pay a contribution of £25,000, say, and share the costs of that important body. That must be wrong. Some important groups, such as academics, would not have £25,000. They may not have a bean, but their advice, and the contribution they can make, would be vital. It is surely in the public interest that the FRC should remain independent and that not just its chairman but all its members should be appointed by the Secretary of State and the Governor of the Bank of England. Payment should take the form of a levy on all limited companies of only £6 for every firm registered at Companies House. That would not be taxpayers' money but a small extra cost imposed on those who enjoy the very great privilege of limited liability, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dagenham.
It is also suggested that either the DTI, the review panel or the stock exchange should bring actions against directors—and perhaps their auditors—in cases of departure from the agreed standards. The ICAEW believes that only the Secretary of State should have the duty, on the advice of the review panel, to order corrected accounts. If that is left to any one of three bodies standing in a circle waiting fo the others to move because the first one to pick up the glowing coal will have to pay the bill, one can be sure that there will be another two or three years of inaccuracy and delay before corrected accounts are ordered.
The cost could be immense. If a company with the determination of Lonrho, for example, decided to pursue an order for corrected accounts all the way to the House of Lords, there is no doubt that the stock exchange would not touch it, and that the review panel would not have the depth of purse or the staff to pursue such an action. As to staffing, the review panel could not deal with more than four or five large cases a year. If it became caught up in a major court action, it could hardly deal with more than one correct account case. It must be the Secretary of State who not only orders those actions but guarantees payment.
Part II of the Bill introduces a new regime for the regulation of auditors. It implements the EC eighth directive on the approval of auditors, but goes well beyond the directive's requirements. The United Kingdom Government do not often go way beyond European Community directive requirements, but in schedule 8, for example, the requirements on monitoring, on maintaining competence and on technical standards are not contained in the directive. Therefore, the Government have chosen a significantly heavier regulatory regime than we believe is needed. The costs of the new regime will be increased further by the Government's decision to retain the small company audit requirement.
We in the Institute of Chartered Accountants accept the monitoring of auditors, but we do not believe that the public interest is served by monitoring all auditors of all companies as is proposed. Why should one monitor the activities of a small audit firm that audits the local newsagent? It cannot be in the public interest. The accounts are not in the public interest, the company is not


in the public interest. Therefore, the nettle of removing the statutory duty of small companies to have an audit should have been grasped. Not only would accounting standards and the monitoring of auditors be applied solely to firms that had a public interest, but the costs would be greatly reduced for all concerned. Only about 1,000 firms would have to be monitored if only major companies had to be audited rather than the estimated 11,000 firms at the moment. Those costs will be passed on to the smaller companies being audited, and that cannot be in the national interest.
Accountants are members of the one profession that is happy to lose an apparent vested interest by removing the statutory requirement for audits of all companies, no matter how small. We should rather do work that clients want than the work that the state demands. There would be no loss of security on income tax. After all, large partnerships do not have audits unless they want them, and it is pointless to say that banks will insist on an audit. Banks do not need last year's audited profit and loss account; they need next year's projected cash flow.
The Government are considering a number of detailed points that the institute has raised on part II of the Bill, and have already brought forward a number of amendments in response to our comments. We are grateful for those changes, and particularly for the introduction of immunity against litigation for recognised supervisory bodies. I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs for listening to our arguments and to Lord Strathclyde, and particularly to Lord Benson who worked so hard to achieve that immunity. Without that protection, recognised supervisory bodies and their officers and employees would have been vulnerable to litigation for huge sums—amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds in some cases—and the new regime would have been unworkable.
I regret having to leave out four other substantive issues which must be left for consideration in Committee, but my final point is equally important. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has been concerned for many years about the complexity and uncertainty surrounding the Companies Act provisions relating to the disclosure of directors' transactions. My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that clauses were introduced in part IV of the Companies Act 1980 to try to stop various abuses by which directors used company funds for their own benefit. Very few would deny that the combination of straight prohibition and heightened disclosure has worked to some extent, but those 1980 rules, which were consolidated into the Companies Act 1985, are famous by their obscurity of language and complexity in practice. The main object of the regulations seems to be to embarrass directors who use loans, quasi-loans, expenses or other transactions with their companies, into giving up their erstwhile practices because of the publicity given to them in the company's accounts which would be checked by the auditors.
The state relies on company auditors to make sure that proper disclosure is achieved, and that directors do not wriggle out of their legal obligations. The only problem is that auditors, solicitors and the barristers to whom they refer from time to time are frequently unable to give companies positive advice on the law as it applies in

particular circumstances. The law, on one hand, is too complex and, on the other, is not comprehensive enough. It cannot be in the interests of any of us who want to see properly agreed legislation fully carried out if the auditors, on whom the directors, the DTI and shareholders rely, are seen to be muddled and uncertain about those interpretations. The most significant problems were communicated to my hon. Friend the Minister in a memorandum from the ICAEW dated December 1988 in an endeavour to have the matter considered under the Bill. Regrettably, the Department said that the Bill was too complex without the introduction of further material.
The existing law must be simplified and improved in the interests of all by starting again from first principles, offering greater simplification and clarity and, at the same time, removing unnecessary burdens and plugging loopholes. The longer the law continues unchanged, the longer the defects and ambiguities will be allowed to continue. The current muddle on loans, quasi-loans and credit transactions will, for yet another two or three accounting years, be a drain and burden on those who exercise their obligations properly and a muddy pond in which the ignorant or, at worst, the fraudulent will continue to wallow. For instance, transactions by non-relevant companies can be easily structured to avoid the prohibition on loans to directors, allowing a director, in certain circumstances, to borrow from his company without financial limit.
Extended credit terms can be used to drive a coach and horses through intended legislation. Too many subjective judgments must be made, all of which are unfair on an auditor trying to do an accurate job, and these lead to poor relationships with a director, who for the life of him cannot understand why he should be exposed to such publicity, about which there is no clear legal interpretation.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, in all sincerity: if a Companies Bill is not the proper medium to amend this important legislation, what on earth is? If the Bill is too complex and long, when can we expect another to deal with these important matters?
I am aware of an exchange of letters between my hon. Friend and the Institute of Chartered Accountants and of the fact that there will be a further meeting later today. Progress cannot be delayed much further.
I am sad that we have not had longer to debate the Bill. There will be many chances to debate it in Committee, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, please, not to consider that the shortness of the debate has reduced the sincerity with which hon. Members have discussed the issues that are involved and the importance of the task still facing him in producing a Bill that will be regarded as competent and workable legislation.

Mr. John Garrett: The debate has given us an opportunity to examine some important issues in relation to the regulation and governance of companies. I join hon. Members in saying how ridiculous it is that such an important Bill is being considered at this hour. Although it is true that the delay was caused by the now absent hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), we are discussing the Bill at this hour to satisfy the amour propre of the Government. It could easily have been dealt with tomorrow, or later.
That is not the only example of unsatisfactory conduct on the Bill by the Government. In another place, the Bill was presented incomplete and poorly drafted. The ultra vires provisions were inserted as Government amendments in the Committee stage and we still await amendments based on Department of Trade and Industry consultations on the Dearing report on the making of accounting standards and on proposed amendments to the Financial Services Act 1986. Those consultations were carried out late in the progress of the Bill.
Ministers have continually referred to seeking consultations on the detailed provisions of the Bill, yet part VII—"Financial Markets and Insolvency"—introduced its measures without consulting the major relevant body—the Insolvency Practitioners Joint Liaison Committee. In a complex subject, this failing resulted in proposed legislation that was less than comprehensible and the Government had to introduce 110 amendments to this part on Report.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said, in 50 hours of discussion on the Bill in another place, the Government introduced 400 amendments. In his final speech, the Secretary of State, in one of his most welcome appearances during discussion of the Bill, told the other place that there were still many matters on which the Government were in the process of coming to a view, which may lead to changes in this House.
I hope that the Minister will undertake that in Committee we shall have adequate notice of proposed amendments, some of which raise the most important issues in the Bill. The Government should make up their mind what they want and put forward legislation designed to achieve their objective. We should not have to debate what are merely suggestions in the Department's consultative documents.
We are critical of the Bill in three main areas. It gives inadequate recognition to the fact that limited liability is a privilege that carries with it obligations to shareholders, creditors, employees, the local community and the public interest; its failure to address the all too prevalent problem of managerial and financial market short-termism, manifested by our present outbreak of merger mania; and the reliance on self-regulation, which has not worked when high financial stakes are involved. I shall refer briefly to some of the consequent issues to enable the Minister to reply.
Given the privilege of limited liability, it follows that company accounts should reflect the consequent obligations to provide full and meaningful disclosure. We want a regime of disclosure as a result of which the company is made more accountable to its shareholders, customers, employees, the local community and the national interest.
We welcome the Government's apparent commitment to give the degree of statutory backing to the statements of standard accounting practice recommended in the Dearing report. This, however, puts the cart before the horse and we await the Government's comments on the Dearing report's recommendations for a new structure for accounting standards. We are not impressed by the present self-regulatory approach with the major accountancy firms dominating the body responsible for drafting accounting standards—and a particularly secretive body it is, too.
Part II deals with the regulation of the auditing profession and seeks to implement the EEC eighth company directive. In 1986, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the implementation process

provided the opportunity to take "a long, hard look" at the structure and organisation of the profession. In the light of that long, hard look, we regret that the Government appear to have in mind measures which essentially leave intact the present hands-off regulatory approach to auditing.
We regret that the Government have not chosen to implement any of the suggestions in the DTI consultative document "Regulation of Auditors" regarding article 24 of the eighth directive which requires member states to ensure that statutory auditors must be independent. We welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State on Second Reading in another place that the Government amendments would require the fees paid to auditors, or their associates, for services other than auditing to their clients, to be disclosed in company accounts, as audit fees are now. Clearly, there are potential conflicts of interest, and we shall seek the Government's views in Committee.
I was involved in the campaign that led up to the National Audit Act 1983. We are concerned that the Bill in at least one respect is narrower than the EEC eighth directive on which part II is based. The restrictions in schedule 9 on the type of audit work and the bodies to be audited may have a substantial impact on the work of the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission for England and Wales and the Accounts Commission for Scotland—for example, in the establishment of agencies which may become corporate bodies but are still largely funded by public expenditure which the National Audit Office would no longer be empowered to examine. Those of us who were in the campaign that led up to the National Audit Act 1983 would be sorry to see its provisions weakened.
We welcome the wider investigation powers conferred in the Bill in part III. The Minister referred to speeding up investigations, but 19 inquiries are still uncompleted, some dating back to 1982. Slackness and inefficiency by the DTI is the clearest possible signal to miscreants in the City that they have nothing to fear from the present regulation arrangements.
Part V, on other amendments to the Companies Act 1985, is disappointingly short. The Government could have updated the purpose and concept of company law, so that it was concerned not only with protecting the shareholders but with recognising the great social and economic importance of the limited liability company and ensuring that it served the wider interests of the community. The interests of the company are defined by the courts to be those of its shareholders. Section 309 of the 1985 Act which enables and requires directors to take account of the interests of employees is ineffective.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Chichester (M r. Nelson) referred to non-executive, audit committees and compensation committees. The desire to see them introduced is held by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that we can form an alliance in Committee to ensure that progress is made. That would ensure public accountability of a company in a simple way—which has been advocated by hon. Members for a long time.
In Committee we shall also discuss European initiatives in providing new statutory rights to employees—rights of representation on the board and rights to information and consultation. Such changes would bring us into line with the EC Vredeling directive arid the draft fifth directive on the structure and management of public companies.
We look forward to discussing in Committee the Government's position on takeovers, as embodied in part VI. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) referred to the greater efficiency, effectiveness or both that can arise from takeovers. In fact, however, the DTI's research shows that more than half of takeovers lead to a decline in company performance or at best have a neutral effect on it. The threat of takeover leads to preoccupation with short-term survival. We shall try to establish what Government policy is on that, given that there is widespread confusion at present.
We welcome the increased shareholder interest disclosure provisions in the Bill as a step towards greater transparency, to bring the behind-the-scenes activities of predators out into the open. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, however, we do not think that it goes anything like far enough. At present the law proceeds on the assumption that takeovers and mergers are beneficial in principle. We should like the burden of proof to be reversed so that mergers or takeovers could proceed only if they were shown to be in the public interest. The Director General of Fair Trading aired that possibility some time ago. Overall then, this is a Bill of missed opportunities, which we shall do our best to amend in Committee.
I should like to refer to the Special Standing Committee procedure and the motion on it. I am glad that the hon. Member for Chichester referred to it. Our objective view is that this Bill is particularly well suited to examination in a special Standing Committee. The 1987 Procedure Committee, which proposed the procedure and of which I was a member, thought that it was well suited to a technical Bill affecting the interests of particular groups. Those groups could be summoned—for no more than three opening sittings in Select Committee form—to give evidence to show to what extent their interests were enhanced or prejudiced by the proposals.
It would save time if we could examine the Minister rather than having to table probing amendments leading to long and often fruitless debates, and the two Procedure Committees that have considered the procedure since 1987–88 have concluded that it should be used more widely. The Procedure Committee that sat in 1984–85 observed that all the evidence that it had received on the operation of Special Standing Committees "was enthusiastic" and the Committee that sat in 1987 said that it should be more widely used.
Given the number of technical, largely non-controversial Bills that come before us, it is a great pity that the Leader of the House has seen fit to accede to a request for its use on only five occasions, although we have examined 440 Bills under this Government. In our objective and non-partisan view, the Companies Bill is just the kind of Bill that would benefit from examination. In view of the lateness of the hour and the known opposition of the present Leader of the House—who, I am afraid compares most unfavourably with one of his predecessors, Lord St. John of Fawley—I shall not press the motion to a Division.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): A number of hon. Members have commented on the time at which this debate is taking place, and I am sure that all of us on the Conservative Benches share the disquiet that has been expressed. It is a matter of regret, however, that the culprit who held up our proceedings for so long with his outrageous display of egotism and publicity-seeking has not sought to avail himself of the opportunity to take part in this debate on what everyone has agreed is an extremely important Bill. Moreover, the Bill directly affects Scotland, so it is a matter of regret that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and all his colleagues in the Scottish National party should have taken themselves away as soon as their publicity stunt was over.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) referred to the motion to refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee. I understand his arguments. He took part in the setting up of that procedure, which is particularly dear to his heart. This is not the right sort of Bill for that approach. He said, as the Select Committee on Procedure said, that that was appropriate for Bills which affect particular groups. This Bill has wide application. It affects every company in the business sector. It is of universal application. It does not fall into the category of Bills which affect certain groups in the way that the Select Committee had in mind.
Several hon. Members have taken the trouble to express thoughtful and serious views about this important Bill. Several points have been agreed to be desirable, and I welcome the support that has been expressed. So much agreement was expressed about the Government's views on employee share ownership schemes that I am inclined to think that it may arouse some suspicion. None the less, we are glad to have the universal approbation that the provisions have aroused.
I shall deal briefly with some of the points that have been raised in, I regret, no particular order and not, I regret, comprehensively. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) referred to the Dearing committee on accounting standards. I am aware of the Institute of Chartered Accountants' concern about financial arrangements. I stress that the financial arrangements will not be comprehensively dealt with. I have no doubt that, if the new system is to work, it must attract funding from a wide variety of sources—practitioners, users of accounts, and a wide variety of participants.
Regarding the regulation of auditors in part II of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dagenham asked whether there was a need for monitoring arrangements to be included in the Bill and whether the eighth directive requires that. That is not done in specific terms, but we have no doubt that the requirement that companies set up effective supervision implicitly requires that there should be some monitoring. We do not believe that the monitoring to be carried out by professional bodies need be excessively burdensome. The hon. Gentleman will know that detailed arrangements have not been submitted to my Department by professional bodies.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether progress can be made in resolving the incredibly difficult issues on directors' transactions. All of us agree that the present state of the law is by no means ideal. Nevertheless, no one


can agree on how the law can be improved. I am aware of the concern of the institute on this matter, too, and further discussions are taking place.
Several hon. Members referred to political donations. The hon. Member for Dagenham went to some pains to knock down, so he thought, my right hon. Friend's arguments—arguments that my right hon. Friend had not in fact deployed. It was rather foolish of the hon. Gentleman to raise that matter, because what he said was wholly spurious. He argued that it was not possible for indirect investors, through insurance schemes or unit trusts, to opt out of paying political contributions by selling their shares. He said that we should therefore embrace the amendment made in another place. Unhappily for him, that amendment provides no remedies at all in the case of such indirect investors. The hon. Gentleman would have been wise to leave that argument alone.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke about river companies. Any such companies are subject to the proper requirements of company law that political donations of more than £200 must be disclosed. That provision was introduced by the Labour Government about 22 years ago and has operated effectively since then. We see no reason to change it.
Several hon. Members have referred to the disclosure of interest in shares. The hon. Member for Dagenham regretted that we have not gone further in requiring nominee share owners to disclose their interest. He does not recognise that such disclosure requirements affect nominee share ownership. The beneficial interest in shares must be disclosed, not the nominal ownership of the shares. The impact is considerable, bringing the time period for disclosure down from five days to two days and reducing the threshold from 5 to 3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman was ungracious not to recognise the significance of that change. He also failed to recognise the changes made by the stock exchange in enabling companies, by their own articles of association, to provide a remedy against nominee share owners who fail to disclose, when properly required to disclose by companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) asked that we ensure that other member states in Europe implement the requirements as rigorously as we will do. I have discovered that there is a tendency in the European Community to believe that each country is the only one implementing rules properly and that all other 11 countries are breaking the rules. We must be alert to ensure that the rules are properly implemented.
My hon. Friend also referred to non-executive directors' audit committees and so on. With his experience, he will know that the law makes no distinction between non-executive directors and executive directors. All directors are under a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the company. That obligation rests on all directors, irrespective of their role in the company.
Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Dagenham, made some snide allusions to the House of Fraser case. His allegations were extremely offensive and unfounded. When he reads them in the cool light of dawn, he will regret the tone he used. In the case of the publication of reports, each instance must be considered on its merits to decide how the public interest is best served. The hon. Gentleman does himself no credit if he suggests that anything other than the public interest has motivated the Government.
Several hon. Members referred to the provisions on mergers. The hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Dagenham suggested that we should reverse the presumption that a merger is in the public interest, and cast the burden on companies to prove that their proposed mergers meet that requirement. A takeover bid, a public offer for shares, is an invitation to shareholders to sell their shares. They need do so only if they decide that it is in their interests. Companies are owned by their shareholders. Are the hon. Gentlemen saying that the Government should exercise more powers strenuously to prevent mergers from taking place? Are they saying that we should forbid shareholders from selling their shares to a willing buyer? If they are trying to make themselves out to be respectively representing the parties of the shareholder, they have some more thinking to do.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye said that we must be more alert to prevent concentrations of shares. It is true that in the early 1970s concentrations did increase, but the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that, since then, they have decreased, if only slightly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) said that speed must not be an overriding master. However, it is in the interests of commercial efficiency that matters are resolved speedily. My hon. Friend complimented the takeover panel on the effective way in which it operates, and I endorse what he said. We are anxious that the very effective procedures that exist as a method of self-regulation should be allowed to continue. No one disputes the voluntary nature of the arrangement. We are simply trying to find a way in which that non-statutory form can be used to implement the takeover directive.
Several hon. Members referred to the United Kingdom market's relative openness to takeovers. That is correct and it is a problem that needs to be resolved. However, the way to resolve it is not by making our markets less open; it is to take steps to make other markets more open. At our specific request, the European Commission is undertaking studies, assisted in many ways, into what barriers exist and whether they can be removed by legislative means. I have no doubt that some can, but many are cultural and attitudinal barriers and they will take time to remove—but being removed they are, and that will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and hoped that it would continue to have a role. I assure him that it will, and I endorse his tribute to the work of the MMC, which has had an exceptionally heavy work load in the past 12 months, which it has discharged efficiently, thoroughly and effectively. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.
The hon. Member for Dagenham referred to the modest changes that we are proposing to the Financial Services Act 1986 and said that he sympathised with our argument on section 62. I assure him that we shall consult before we make regulations that define who the private investor is. It is important that we should maintain adequate, proper and full protections for private investors, but we feel that it is reasonable to take the view that professional investors can look after themselves to a large extent. Therefore, the argument for removing section 62 protection from such investors is incontestable.
The principles that the Securities and Investment Board will be able to promulgate do not replace the rules which have a legally binding effect; they merely form a backdrop


to those rules so that a firm that manages to avoid the letter of the rules does not avoid the consequences of that altogether.

Mr. Gould: Is the Minister saying that the rulebook, as it existed in all its volume and complexity, will remain and that the principles will be additional, or can we expect that the principless will displace a good proportion of those pre-existing rules?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, within the existing framework of the law, some simplification of the rulebook has already taken place. I regard that as wholly desirable because the rulebook had become over-complex, which was helpful neither to investors nor to firms. Although we can expect further simplifications of the rulebook, that does not mean that the effect of those rules will be less. I believe that their effectiveness will tend to be greater because the more detailed rules are, the easier it is for clever lawyers to find a way through them. Adding the principles to those rules with legal effect will provide a more effective backstop because it will enable the regulatory bodies to take disciplinary and regulatory action against those firms that try to avoid the letter of the rules but breach the principle. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gould: No, I am sorry, but it certainly does not. The Minister has confirmed that the principles will replace the rules at least in some respects. I agree that the rules are too detailed, but at least they have the merit of being legally enforceable at the suit of those who suffer from any breach of those rules. We are unhappy that, if the rules are to be replaced by principles that are not so legally enforceable, we have lost an important element of the regulatory framework. As that is exactly what the Minister and what his right hon. Friend said earlier, it is on that basis that we shall object to the proposals.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman's fears are unfounded. There is no question of the principles replacing the rules—they are an addition to the rules, which will continue to have legal effect. However, I look forward to discussing this in detail with the hon. Gentleman in Committee.
The hon. Member for Dagenham concluded his remarks by listing a string of examples, all of which he adduced in order, he hoped, to show that the Financial Services Act 1986 has not been effective. Those examples had one common thread running through them: they were all utterly irrelevant to the case that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to support. Either they related to events that happened before the 1986 Act came into effect or they related to breaches of laws that have nothing to do with that Act.
We take extremely tough action against any wrongdoing. Given the sort of cases currently before the courts, anyone who suggests that the Government are anything but robust in pursuing wrongdoing and bringing it to justice has not been reading the newspapers carefully.

Mr. Gould: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maude: No. I have given way on several occasions to the hon. Gentleman, and I believe that the House is anxious that this matter be brought to a conclusion.
This has been a useful debate. It is a prelude to more detailed discussions in Committee. The Bill is a useful measure that will improve the teamwork within which free enterprise can operate. I urge the House to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that there is no constraint on time and that it is the courtesy and practice of the House for Front-Bench speakers, particularly on important Bills, to give way on explanations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is a matter for the Minister to decide.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 91.

Division No. 186]
[1.41 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Morgan, Rhodri


Cousins, Jim
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Quin, Ms Joyce


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Wall, Pat


Gould, Bryan
Winnick, David


Henderson, Doug



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Irvine, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jack, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Janman, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Jessel, Toby


Bottomley, Peter
Kennedy, Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knapman, Roger


Burns, Simon
Knowles, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Lightbown, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Lord, Michael


Cash, William
Maclean, David


Chapman, Sydney
Mans, Keith


Chope, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Conway, Derek
Maude, Hon Francis


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mills, Iain


Couchman, James
Morrison, Sir Charles


Cran, James
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Nelson, Anthony


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Paice, James


Durant, Tony
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fallon, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Rathbone, Tim


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Forth, Eric
Shaw, David (Dover)


Freeman, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stern, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Stevens, Lewis


Gow, Ian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Summerson, Hugo


Grist, Ian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hague, William
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hanley, Jeremy
Thumham, Peter


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Trotter, Neville


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Waller, Gary


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wells, Bowen






Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 10.

Division No. 187]
[1.52 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bottomley, Peter
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Irvine, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jack, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Janman, Tim


Butterfill, John
Jessel, Toby


Carrington, Matthew
Kennedy, Charles


Cash, William
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Knowles, Michael


Conway, Derek
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Couchman, James
Maclean, David


Cran, James
Mans, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maude, Hon Francis


Day, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, Iain


Durant, Tony
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fallon, Michael
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Forman, Nigel
Nelson, Anthony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gill, Christopher
Raffan, Keith


Gow, Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Grist, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hague, William
Stern, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Stevens, Lewis


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)





Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Summerson, Hugo
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Wallace, James
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Waller, Gary



NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Spearing, Nigel


Cousins, Jim
Wall, Pat


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Winnick, David


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



McAvoy, Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Snape, Peter
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

COMPANIES BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Companies Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by a Government department for defraying expenses incurred under or in consequence of the Act, and
(b) the payment out of such money or out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Gavel-Jones.]

WAYS AND MEANS

COMPANIES BILL [LORDS]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Companies Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the charging of fees,
(b) the amendment of the definitions of "subsidiary" and "holding company" in enactments in which those expressions are defined by reference to the Companies Act 1985, and
(c) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

PETITION

Children (Carrickfergus)

Mr. Roy Beggs: I beg to ask leave to present a petition containing signatures collected by my constituents in the historic town and borough of Carrickfergus in East Antrim. My petitioners are concerned that children and teenagers are at risk of becoming addicted to slot, fruit and gaming machines and that addiction to such machines might lead to serious damage to their education, disruptive behaviour in the home and in some cases to criminal activity in order to satisfy their addiction to gambling on machines. The petitioners believe that the Government could protect children, young teenagers and the families of those at risk by amending legislation.
I congratulate those who signed and those who collected the 3,558 signatures which are considered to be representative of the views of millions of responsible citizens throughout the United Kingdom.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will do everything in its power to urge the Government to help protect children, young teenagers and the families of those at risk by urgently amending legislation so as to restrict the installation of these machines to licensed premises where adults only have access to them.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Prince of Wales Hospital, Rhydlafar

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful that Mr. Speaker has seen fit to let me raise the question of the closure of the St. Nicholas children's ward at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital in Rhydlafar in my constituency. This Adjournment debate is taking place in the early hours of what is an historic morning—in more ways than one, perhaps. It is a rather late hour at which to discuss a matter of such concern and it gives a new meaning to the phrase "five o'clock shadow".
The matter is of great importance, not only to my constituents but to those who live in the surrounding counties of Mid Glamorgan and Gwent. If the closure goes ahead, it will mean that children requiring orthopaedic surgery will not receive the standard of treatment that they deserve this year and in the years ahead. In order to determine the exact reason for the announcement about the ward closure and to understand the absence, as yet, of a statement about alternative provision, we need to look at the background to this year's financial provision for the South Glamorgan health authority which controls the hospitals in the county, part of which I have the honour to represent.
This year late notification about funding for the present financial year was given to the county by the Welsh Office. The county received that notification only in February. The funding meant that the county had to make savings on its budget of £2·3 million, or 1·3 per cent., and had to find those savings in the short time between February and March. All the unit managers were asked desperately to suggest ways in which they might contribute to those savings. They saw an impending financial crisis, given the few weeks that they had to try to find the savings.
The general manager of the area health authority, Gordon Harrhy, was interviewed on Radio Wales, and was asked what he thought about the budget allocation received from the Welsh Office. He said, "It is very interesting to me. I have frequently listened to Government spokesmen saying that each year the Health Service receives an increase in real terms. I am the manager of the health authority and I know that I have less money in real terms and less to spend in 1989 than I had in 1988."
The process by which the recommendations for savings were brought before the authority for acceptance or rejection took only a few weeks. The relevant proposals were put before the authority at its monthly meeting in March and confirmed at the April meeting. The savings package included weekend closures at the University hospital, the closure of a rehabilitation ward also in my constituency at Rookwood, and certain other smaller miscellaneous savings.
The one saving that brought the greatest calumny on the Government's head and on the head of the health authority was the proposal to close the children's ward at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar. That hospital will always be known to the natives of Radyr, where I grew up, as the American hospital. It was the nearest hospital to the village of my childhood, and was built during the war for the American service men and gradually converted in the early 1950s into the primary orthopaedic hospital for


south Wales and, with Oswestry, is one of the only two orthopaedic specialist hospitals serving the whole of Wales.
There is no question but that the March decision was a bombshell. All the operating theatres were new and had been opened only last August at a cost of £750,000. They are next door to the children's ward and there is a proud plaque on the side of the new operating theatre which says that it was opened by Alun Jones, chairman of the health authority, in August 1988. The Welsh Office paid for that, as it had paid £3 million to £4 million for the upgrading programme for the Prince of Wales hospital after the reversal of a previous decision for the closure for the whole hospital. That closure had been announced by the previous Secretary of State for Wales, Nicholas Edwards as he then was, in 1982.
The savings that would be achieved amounted to £40,000, and the total savings required were £2·3 million. No more than 2 or 3 per cent. of the total savings would come from the closure of the children's ward. However, the authority decided to proceed, although it was faced with misleading medical and financial statistics. Those of us who have been involved in the campaign to reverse the decision have had no hesitation in saying that the health authority based its decision on the papers which were put before it at its March monthly meeting, which were the result of those statistics.
The authority was told that it would save £47,000. Omitted was the fact that the education authority paid £7,000 towards the cost of the school. It is the only school in the hospitals within south Glamorgan that covers the five to 16-year age group. It is possible for someone within that group to do his or her O-levels or GCSEs at the hospital. That is more likely to be of importance to children requiring orthopaedic surgery than those needing general medicine because they have tended in the past to spend extremely long periods in hospital. Even today, children needing orthopaedic surgery may spend six months in hospital, notwithstanding the wonderful technology for correcting length of limbs and club feet, for example. Patients still spend a much longer period in an orthopaedic hospital than they would for most forms of hospital treatment. As I have said, there is a school provision, which is paid for by the education authority.
It is important that there were misleading medical statistics. In effect, the authority said, "We are going to close the children's ward because it is under-used. It is occupied for only 47 per cent. of the time that it is available for use." It is a 12-bed ward. The medical staff at the hospital keep its records carefully. It found that, if midday bed occupancy was taken into account, there is 65 per cent. occupancy. The staff say, for sound medical reasons, that midday occupancy is much more relevant than night occupancy. Children who require orthopaedic treatment are not ill in the conventional sense. They are not suffering from an infection, a fever or any recognisable illness. If it is possible for them to go home to be with their family, or even to attend school, they should be sent home overnight, to return the following day for their treatment. The midday count is the relevant one. The difference between 47 per cent. and 65 per cent. is relevant, because 75 per cent. is for all practical intents and purposes the maximum bed occupancy for a children's ward.
What else was wrong with the way in which the health authority went about its decision making? Most people were appalled that it was willing to announce closure of a

children's ward without being able to say with any confidence that there was an alternative for the provision of orthopaedic surgery for children. In other words, it claimed that there were several options. What were they? One option was a move to the Coronation ward of the Cardiff Royal infirmary. The infirmary is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). I am pleased to see him in his place tonight because I can say of him, with confidence, that if he required orthopaedic surgery, he, like myself, would probably attend National Health Service hospitals in South Glamorgan.
The Coronation ward at the Royal infirmary is a general children's ward. It deals with pneumonia treatment, bladder infection; or whatever. It is entirely unsuitable for cold orthopaedic surgery cases, which may require treatment for months but which are not suffering from infection. It would be wrong to mix them with pneumonia and bladder infection cases because they would be at risk of catching those infections during the lengthy period that they would be in the ward. At least the orthopaedic cases would have the same children's facilities, which is an attractive idea, but the ward would be unsuitable medically. Today, one of the senior staff of the health authority has told me that it was never on to opt for a move to the Coronation ward. I was told that it was never a practical solution. It seems that it was something written down in a moment of panic. The entire episode betokens strongly management by panic after a spot of government by panic following late notification of the budget.
The other alternatives relate to changes within the Prince of Wales hospital. One is conversion of the day ward used by outpatients for use as a children's ward as well. Another involves the conversion of an adult ward to provide a children's annex. Another option is touting for more business, as it was put, to draw more children in to the hospital and make greater use of the beds there.
The problem with converting the day ward is that outpatient treatment is a rapidly expanding aspect of hospital provision. The day ward does not offer enough room for adaptation, so that is a totally impracticable suggestion. I am reliably informed by the medical staff that day ward use is high and is increasing as many more people are treated on a day basis than used to be the case. They include patients for minor surgery to remove ganglia and trigger thumb, who do not need to stay overnight.
However, children could not share the same ward. They would play around and would receive their drug treatment while adults in the same ward would be receiving totally different drugs, needing peace and quiet as they recover for a couple of hours after undergoing surgery before returning home. It would hardly be ideal for such patients to share a ward with children staying in the hospital for months and who want to play on go-karts or computers as a diversion in the long months of their stay.
Converting an adult ward to include a children's annex is also totally impracticable without capital works, which would take away much of the £47,000 savings. The hospital's senior medical staff are on record as saying as much. The Minister may have read the remarks of Hans Weisl, the most distinguished orthopaedics surgeon, who wrote an open letter to the health authority that was published yesterday. He commented that such an option just is not on without major works. The senior medical staff all agree on that point and have pressed the health


authority to forget that idea. It would cancel out most of the savings, leaving perhaps £10,000. What kind of contribution is that to the intended savings of £2·3 million?
It is appalling that the health authority should decide to close a children's ward without being confident that any of the alternatives it suggested, and loosely dangled before the health authority's decision-makers when they had to put up their hands to vote, are practical alternatives that the orthopaedic staff concerned are prepared to countenance as suitable, and without requiring expenditure that would negate the savings that originated that madcap closure.
Since the announcement of a campaign to rescind the closure decision, the health authority has reacted like a scalded cat. Its chairman, Alun Jones, sent a nonsensical letter to all the medical staff involved. It includes the following arrant nonsense:
I must emphasise that wherever these services are relocated the current provision for children will be maintained and there is no intention whatsoever that children's facilities should be mixed with adult facilities on the ward.
That cannot be done. It is not achievable. That comment suggests that the authority intends a move to the Coronation ward at Cardiff Royal infirmary, which I was told today is not on—and never was.
The authority must get into its head the principle that the medical staff have already emphasised—that children requiring orthopaedic treatment cannot be mixed with children receiving treatment for infectious diseases, or with adults receiving orthopaedic treatment. There is no way that Mr. Jones can make good the promise in his letter dated 26 April to the medical staff.
The health authority's other reaction was to send senior medical staff to the Prince of Wales to pore over the figures that the nursing sisters there thoroughly researched to try to disprove their bed occupancy figure of 65 per cent., taking into account midday occupancy. Senior nursing staff have spent until after 7 o'clock every night trying to double check and find fault with the figures, so far with no result. There are always two or three more children in the ward during the day than at night.
The staff who have led the anti-closure campaign have been browbeaten by senior medical staff from the health authority who told them quite incorrectly that no child is sent home at weekends for the good of that child, and that if it ever happens it is only five or six times in a year. That is not true. The sisters in charge of the ward have been told that it is only ever closed at weekends when there are no cases, but they know that it occasionally is closed at weekends as an economy measure and not because there are no cases.
In the few minutes that remain, I turn to the Yates report. The Minister will be well aware that the Welsh Office paid for John Yates, a distinguished consulting health economist, to prepare a report to assist the Welsh Office to attack the lengthy waiting lists in adult orthopaedic surgery. That report has now been prepared. Its contents are known. It recommends that the number of orthopaedic surgeons operating in South Glamorgan should be increased from six to eight, an increase of 25 per cent. That will obviously increase the throughput of adult work and will attack the 2,000-strong waiting list for adult orthopaedic work. That in turn will have a major impact on the way in which the Prince of Wales orthopaedic

hospital is used. It is the height of irresponsibility for the health authority, knowing that the Welsh Office-commissioned report is about to be published, but before the report can be published, before the public can judge what it says, before they can act on it or consider its implications on the use of orthopaedic facilities for children and adults, to go ahead and announce the closure of the children's ward.
I hope that the Minister will step in. If the children's ward is closed, where will the children go? If the Welsh Office does not know the answer, if the South Glamorgan health authority does not know the answer, at least they should ensure that the South Glamorgan health authority suspends the closure until the Yates report is published and acted on and its implications for the treatment of children requiring orthopaedic surgery are fully worked out. After all, the children deserve the best, and they have nowhere else to go but to that ward.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has raised at some length—and I do not object to that—his opposition to South Glamorgan health authority's proposal to relocate the children's ward at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar. I welcome the opportunity to explain to him why, at this stage in the proceedings, his comments would have been better addressed to the health authority itself.
The Prince of Wales hospital was constructed during world war two as an American army hospital. In the early 1950s, it was converted to an orthopaedic hospital to serve the general population and the first orthopaedic patients were admitted in April 1953. Since that time, the hospital has earned a reputation for excellence of clinical practice and commitment by all staff to excellent standards of care. The hospital is exclusively orthopaedic, although it shares common services with the adjacent blood transfusion centre. It attracts patients principally from south and mid-Glamorgan, Gwent and part of Powys.
I understand that the proposal to relocate the children's ward, which currently houses 12 beds, was one of a number of measures proposed as cash-releasing cost improvements in the health authority's budget strategy. The strategy was accepted in principle by the authority at its meeting on 15 March this year. The authority's officers are at present considering options—in consultation with Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan community health councils—for re-provision of the service for children. I understand that the options include re-provision of a smaller ward, which the authority would regard as more suited to the actual utilisation of the existing ward in 1988. Such a ward might be provided by using another ward, or part of another ward, at Rhydlafar or by using the children's ward at Cardiff Royal infirmary. I understand that these options are not exhaustive and the way forward is to be discussed at a joint meeting of members and officers of the authority and community health council representatives later this month. Comments on the options should therefore be given to the health authority at this stage.
The matter is not one which is before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales at this stage—indeed, it may not come before him. The guidance to health authorities on the procedure for consultation on the


closure and change of use of health buildings is contained in a document known as Health Service planning paper 5, which is not statutory but which sets out the procedures which my right hon. Friend would expect to be followed. It adds to the statutory right of CHCs to be consulted on substantial variations in service, which is set out in the CHC regulations 1985.
Planning paper 5 states that proposals for partial closure or change of use which amount to
any substantial variation in the provision
of the Health Service within the meaning of regulation 19(1) of the Community Health Councils Regulations 1985 should be discussed with a range of bodies including community health councils, local authorities—through the joint consultative committees—family practitioner committees, appropriate local advisory committees, joint staff consultative committees and any other recognised staff organisation not represented on the committees. The document envisages that in most cases it should be possible for local agreement to be reached on restricted consultation but, if not, the formal consultation procedure should be embarked upon.
The formal consultation procedure can be summarised as follows. The health authority should first prepare a consultation document giving reasons for the proposals. This document should include the implications for patients, an indication of any options which have been considered and the arguments put forward in favour of them. The possibility of using redundant facilities for other purposes and manpower implications should be considered.
A three-month period of consultation is the next stage, with comments invited from the bodies that I have already mentioned, together with any other body or person which the health authority considers should be consulted. The health authority should then reconsider the proposals in the light of the comments received. Should an agreed decision be reached which accords with guidelines from the Welsh Office, the health authority may proceed with the proposals subject to a one-month period during which individuals or organisations may appeal to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State against the solution agreed at local level. If the result is either irresoluble disagreement or a locally agreed solution which differs substantially from the original proposals, the authority is required to refer the matter, with its recommendations and an outline of the alternative arrangements, to my right hon. Friend. Following referral, a period of one month should be allowed and publicly announced in which individuals or organisations may make representations on the proposals that have been put forward.
Clearly, at this stage, before the health authority has decided upon its favoured option, it would be wrong to speculate on whether restricted or formal consultation would be appropriate. Equally, given that there is a possibility that the matter may be put before my right hon. Friend, it would not be proper for me to comment on the merits of any of the proposals.
I make no apology for the requirement on the health authority to release cash through cost improvements. The Secretary of State's first priority for the National Health Service in Wales is that it should seek to maximise the patient care which it provides from the human, physical and financial resources available to it.
As the growth in demand for services continues, the realisation of increasing cash savings through cost

improvement programmes will play a crucial part in the funding of discretionary developments. Indeed, cost improvements may represent a major source of moneys for developments for some health authorities.
Cash-releasing cost improvements are measures aimed at improving the use of resources by reducing the cost of running a service while achieving the same or higher levels of service output and quality. They should arise from clearly identified and planned management action. They are not synonymous with the total cash savings made by authorities in any one year as such savings may also accrue from unplanned or "windfall" savings measures, or result from planned changes in the quantity of service provided. Nor are they synonymous with the total improvements in efficiency which an authority might achieve as these will include gains made by treating additional patients within the same resources, or for a less than commensurate increase in resources.
Cash-releasing savings are important and need to be clearly identified because they provide authorities with a margin of flexibility to meet in-year pressures that may arise, and because they release funds which can be used to develop new services.
Progress has been made, but the National Health Service has a continuing responsibility to pursue every opportunity for improving the efficiency with which it manages the resources at its disposal. There is a need to extend the scope of cost-improvement programmes and district health authorities are expected to include all their activities and occupational groups in the search for savings.
In addition, the Welsh Office has emphasised the role of the search for cash-releasing cost improvements as part of the annual National Health Service planning process. Authorities have been told to bear in mind the following points in planning, monitoring and reporting on cash releasing cost improvements. First, cash-releasing cost-improvement measures should not result in a reduction in the quantity or standard of service provided. It is particularly important that, where they relate to patient services, means should be specified to ensure that this does not happen. Service rationalisations pursued as cash-releasing cost improvements should not be service reductions.
Secondly, cash-releasing cost improvements should be sustained. In practice this means that they should normally produce recurrent savings. Non-recurrent savings arising, for example, from the unplanned freezing of posts or other vacancy control procedures should not be classified as cost improvements. Revenue savings which arise as a result of slippage or deferment of capital schemes or reductions in service levels are not legitimate cost improvements. Health authorities should still pursue vigorously all opportunities for further supplementing funds from the disposal of surplus on redundant capital assets.
My right hon. Friend and I expect all authorities in Wales to plan on the basis of achieving cash-releasing cost improvements and additional income of the same order as is planned by authorities in England. This means that, for 1989–90, Welsh DHAs will be required to plan to obtain recurring cash-releasing cost improvements of at least 1·1 per cent. of their 1989–90 recurring revenue allocations and additional recurrent income generation equivalent to at least 0·2 per cent. of those allocations.
I want to emphasise that our aim is to achieve greater efficiency. We are not talking about reductions in either the


quantity or standard of service provided, and district health authorities are specifically charged to ensure that that does not happen. Nor are we talking about inadequate resources for South Glamorgan health authority, which has received an increase in recurrent revenue resources of some £38·9 million after allowing for inflation between 1978–79 and 1989–90.
I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise that the proposal to relocate the children's ward is separate from the longer-term proposals for the hospital contained in South Glamorgan's draft strategic plan which is before my right hon. Friend at the moment.
Under Health Service planning procedures introduced in 1982, district health authorities are required to produce formal strategic plans and submit these to the Welsh Office for approval every five years. The purpose of strategic plans is to provide a framework of agreed long-term objectives within which short-term operational planning can be undertaken. Strategic plans set out objectives and priorities for the management and development of the full range of health services for the following 10 years or so. They also outline the significant steps necessary to achieve them.
South Glamorgan health authority's original strategic plan had significant weakness and was not approved. Basically, the plan envisaged a continuation of the status quo notwithstanding the proliferation and poor physical condition of its estate. The authority's "revised" strategic plan was produced in October 1987 in the light of an independent consultants' review which was funded by the Welsh Office. On 23 October 1988, after extended public consultation, the health authority submitted the final draft plan to the Department for approval.
The plan proposes a major reorganisation of hospital services within the district with acute provision centred on three district general hospitals, namely the University hospital, Llandough and a new Cardiff Royal infirmary, to replace the existing hospital.
Supporting localised provision would be made in four neighbourhood hospitals, each of 85 beds. Their locations have not been finalised but they would be in the north, south, east and west of the district. Three specialist hospitals complete the picture—Whitchurch, Velindre and Ely. The proposals involve a number of consequential closures, each of which would be subject to a separate formal consultation process. One of these is the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, which is proposed for closure in year seven of the plan. The plan envisages its replacement by beds at the proposed new Cardiff Royal infirmary. This proposal, together with the others contained in the strategic plan and the representations received, is currently the subject of detailed examination, and my right hon. Friend's decision will be announced at the earliest opportunity.
In conclusion, the health authority is at a relatively early stage of consideration of the options for the relocation of the service currently provided at the children's ward at Rhydlafar. It would therefore be premature to comment on either the merits of the proposals or the precise form that consultation will take. However, the authority will be meeting the Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan community health councils later this month. Any comments should at this stage be addressed directly to the health authority or to one of the CHCs.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Three o'clock.